Well, the discussion is inevitably sliding into "sociology," but it is a sociological question in the ultimate sense. Branching is ok, but I agree that we should stick to the point until that is resolved. I've taken the liberty of re-titling the subject lead, while retaining the initial one to signify the branch.
"Impoverished" is the key distinction. The "rich" have elbowed the truly frugal into marginal habitats for millennia. The result is a trashing/impoverishment of the already marginal system carrying/productive. The "footprint" of the rich is the force behind the transition from frugal subsistence into impoverishment. This underlies the mythical aspects of the "population bomb." The frugal, even the impoverished are not responsible, primarily, for being forced into cooking and heating with smaller and smaller stick, or cowshit. If the rich lived in frugal luxury (needs rather than demands, aka whims), the "poor" would not be forced into the marginal habitats, consequently impoverishing them. Let's face it--this earth was not designed for luxury consumption. The true challenge for progress (and ecologists are, or should be, the prophets here) is not how to support unsupportable demands for energy and other resources, but how to reconcile them with the "renewable" capacity of the habitat to sustain a smaller population at a more stable level or a higher population at greatly fluctuating booms and busts--consumption-wise. No species can sustain a boom forever. Adapt or be adjusted. (But what the hell, I'll be long dead when the shit really hits the fan! At least that's the attitude of we, the rich.) WT At 12:49 PM 2/9/2006, Sebastian Luque wrote: >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
