Quoting Osmar Luiz Jr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > But I've not seen in that quiz questions about if the shanty town you live > was built over a former pristine rainforest bush, how many trees must be > down to build your wooden house and what the oxygen dissolved rate in the > water of that river which you and your family deject your feces. This > certalinly will improve the footprint of the poor third world kids.
After people moved out of caves and trees, EVERY single house that man has built anywhere in the world HAS displaced something-- forest, natural grassland, desert sand habitat, whatever. The point is that a third world shanty has a much lower PER CAPITA space usage than say houses in American (or Brazilian) suburbs. And they are not heated or centrally airconditioned, to the point where folks wear shorts while its -30 degrees outside, or folks cuddle up in bed with blankets with the AC full blast while its actually nice and cool outside. Not that I am advocating favelas, but Cara is right that the per capita footprint in the third world is a lot less. I'd like to add that this is especially true of the old world. which has had a high population for the last several millenia, unlike latin america which has been *colonized* and "settled" only in the last 400 years ( from a land transformation point of view). Twin problems face the earth --- the third world's high population and the first world's high level of consumption. None of these have easy fixes. Population control requires widespread education along with economic opportunities, and even then a huge population like India or China has a momentum associated with it. The first world's high consumption. Again this is not easy to fix, unless cities are radically redesigned and public mass transit improved, gasolene taxed, people give up unsustainable practices of central AC/heating, lawns, the whole consumer culture, and pretty much harken back to the pre industrial age. Some folks advocate alternative energy use ( like biofuels ) but lets not kid ourselves, there has to be a REDUCTION of resource use. not substitution. Can or will this be done ? Unless humanity as a whole gets more savvy, and maybe they will in a generation or two, there is not much hope of moving away from a mad max scenario. regards amartya > You should make all the questions. That `footprint quiz` could made first > world people feels guilt. But again your eco-attitudes will be useless and > short-reached if population in the tropics still rises at the rates they > are. > Osmar > > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "Cara Lin Bridgman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > To: <[email protected]> > > Sent: Friday, November 30, 2007 2:29 PM > > Subject: Re: population control > > > > > >> Idiocracy, then, gets back to the 1920's and 1930's ideas of eugenics > >> and 'propagation of the fit' (lampooned by Dorothy Sayers in her book > >> Gaudy Night): educated people must reproduce to make sure we still have > >> smart people on the planet--as if all the poor people were stupid. > >> > >> So far, I've really only see one or two comments on the relative weights > >> of ecological footprints between those in first world countries deciding > >> not to have kids and those in third world countries having lots of kids. > >> Most any bunch of third world kids will have a whole lot smaller > >> ecological footprint than most any first world kid or non-child-bearing > >> first-world adult. A year or so ago, here on Ecolog, this point was > >> raised. First world ecological footprints are huge compared to third > >> world ones--even with 'only one' long-haul flight a year (that one > >> flight adds a whole planet to an ecological footprint: > >> www.myfootprint.org). > >> > >> So, the third world may be making most of the babies, but it is the > >> first (and second) world that is doing most of the consumption and is > >> the driving force behind most ecological disasters from mountain top > >> removal for coal to logging for living room furniture to wars for oil. > >> > >> The arguments about having kids to maintain social security are not any > >> different from the arguments about having kids to take care of you in > >> your old age. In the third world, kids ARE social security. The point > >> I've always wondered about is this: what sort of social security will > >> these kids have? > >> > >> CL > >> > >> > >> Please note my new-old email address: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > >> Cara Lin Bridgman > >> > >> P.O. Box 013 Phone: 886-4-2632-5484 > >> Longjing Sinjhuang > >> Taichung County 434 > >> Taiwan http://megaview.com.tw/~caralin/ > >> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > >> > >> Esta mensagem foi verificada pelo E-mail Protegido Terra. > >> Scan engine: McAfee VirusScan / Atualizado em 30/11/2007 / Versão: > >> 5.1.00/5175 > >> Proteja o seu e-mail Terra: http://mail.terra.com.br/ > >> > >> > >> > >> -- > >> No virus found in this incoming message. > >> Checked by AVG Free Edition. > >> Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.16.12/1162 - Release Date: > >> 30/11/2007 21:26 > >> > >> > > >
