Oh well. Here's that old north vs south debate again. Yes, things would be extreme if all 500 million individuals had the resource usage of the first world. As regards the lady who decided to be childless, its her trip and no one has any business passing judgements on that. But if she were indeed serious about reducing her carbon footprint, she'd reduce much more if she left cushy London and went and lived in a third world town. Better, a third world farm. That includes giving up long haul flights once a year... cheers amartya
Quoting Lela Stanley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > Matheus does raise a point that is rarely discussed even here and virtually > never by (American) politicos. The human footprint would still be > problematic with a smaller global population, but it would be made vastly > more bearable if we weren't multipying quite so fruitfully. I've seen > estimates (possibly in The World Without Us?) of a global human carrying > capacity at 500 million to 1 billion individuals- numbers which are unlikely > to be reached through even the most heartfelt birth control campaigns. All > the same, between a thoughtful, systematic reduction of population - > including measures such as, yes, some people not having kids - and a grand > Malthusian crash, I know which I'd vote for. > > > > On 11/28/07, Mike Marsh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > All of the people who believed that they could help to save the planet > > by not having babies lived their life span and died. The rest of the > > world's population went ahead and had babies. As the genetic (and > > cultural) lines of those believers in birth control perished, the human > > population grew even faster. > > > > Mike Marsh > > --------- > > Matheus Carvalho wrote: > > > > ... to reduce her CO2 footprint. > > > > > http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/femail/article.html?in_article_id=495495&in_page_id=1879 > > > > >
