I think that James illustrates effectively what we face in trying to change
our lifestyle. First of all is the idea that we have to convert to a Chinese
mode of living, which is simply not the issue. I have lived in some pretty
poor urban apartments in my time, but I don't recall any as small as 450
square feet, and I don't think that is really an issue. What is an issue is
stopping before we reach such a high population density that we can only
manage such crowded housing. After all, there was nothing in my original
posting that suggested that the only way we could improve our quality of
life without much higher resource consumption was by greatly increasing
population density!
His second point is the idea that the drive to the grocery store has to be
an easy uncrowded one. My daughter might like that, she lives in Montreal
and has to cross a busy street on foot to get to the Vietnamese grocery. Of
course there are other grocery stores right on her block as well. The point
is that there are places in the world where one can go grocery shopping
without a car.
James' idea of really cutting back is a single-family bungalow on a private
plot of land, too far from work to be able to walk. Even in the US there are
people who live in apartments, some even close to their jobs. But these are
not Hong Kong apartments.
The underlying concept seems to be that no one wants to give up the American
way of life. George W. Bush was absolutely right about that. Something which
I do not find very encouraging.
Bill Silvert
----- Original Message -----
From: "James Crants" <[email protected]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, August 03, 2009 5:53 PM
Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] What's wrong with growth, (was: ESA position on
sustainable growth)
I think your first major point is well taken, though. What is a "better
quality of life"? I would definitely want more than 450 sq ft of living
space, and I did not consider my quality of life to be high the last time
I
had so little space. And while I try to drive as little as I can, I'm
happier to have the option and to have relatively uncongested roads
between
me and the grocery store, my relatives, my friends, and so on.
Your second major point is also important. We can't have an economy
that's
sustainable in the very long term without giving up a lot of what we take
for granted, and we shouldn't pretend otherwise. I don't know just how
much
we'll have to give up. Positive population growth, certainly, a lot of
our
cars, and probably the conventional giant beige house on the 5-acre
"ranchette" twenty miles away from work, but what if my ideal of a little
bungalow on a fifth of an acre a short bus-ride from work is still too
much,
even if I "green" up the house and yard in every way imaginable? I just
don't think you could convince me to give that up and live like your
average
resident of Hong Kong.
