I am not certain that this is true, at least not in every case. Although developed countries are certainly depleting fossil resources at a disastrous rate, in the long term that will have to end. If we look at less advanced cultures we see less resource use but sometimes more serious damage.
The largest ecological footprint is the widespread desertification that is largely due to overgrazing by early agriculturalists. The Sahara is widely believed to be a man-made desert, and others may be the same. Widespread extinctions in the Americas were not caused by roadkills but by early man with spears. Slash and burn farming was and still is a widespread practice. Many mangrove swamps have been cut down for firewood. Even in advanced countries the footprint is not always associated with very modern practices. The loss of many cubic kilometers of irreplaceable topsoil in the central USA is the result of carelessness, although modern monoculture is part of the problem. My point is that the problem is people in general -- to point at the more developed countries and say that they are the culprits is not a constructive approach. Bad environmental practices are pretty much universal. Bill Silvert ----- Original Message ----- From: "Amartya Saha" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: Monday, December 03, 2007 5:59 PM Subject: Re: population control > 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).
