> In many suburban areas large houses are a source of pride, status,
> investment, factors that bloat house size beyond what is ecologically
> sustainable. Yours is a good thinking point.

Large size is a status symbol, and among certain social segments, new is
preferred over old.  In others, old is preferred over new.  I can't
quite figure the criteria people are driven by. 

> I don't know but suspect the
> answer is yes, subsidies perpetuate waste, whether vehicular mileage or
> oversized houses.

I have on my desk a report entitled "The Going Rate:  What is really
costs to drive"  The 1992 estimate of costs of driving which are NOT
paid by the individuals doing the driving is $300 billion dollars, per
year in the US.
It provides traceable and coherent references and sources for the
figures, and it does not include all the hidden costs *I* can think of.

The awful thing is that the details have been refined, the precision is
improved, but the "take home" message is no different from what I knew
in 1970 or 1975.  Nothing has changed direction.  Nothing which worried
people then has now been exposed as insignificant.  We cannot afford to
make progess at this kind of pace.

> Much of what our government does is geared to help
> corporations give consumers what they want at a dollar price they can pay
> and to encourage greater production and consumption. 

I just keep struggling with how to expose this for the lie that it is.
How to slay this dragon????

> Growth, growth,
> growth, as Edward Abbey said, the mentality of cancer cells. Lasts as long
> as the host can survive or kills the cancer. I believe Gaia will win but I
> don't know if we will see it.

Exactly.  Whenever I hear something framed in the format of the false
dilemma "what's more important, people or the environment?" I really am
close to despair.  Sure, I guess those are just independent variables.
If that level of understanding cannot be budged, our goose is cooked! 
Sure, life will not end.  Life is amazingly adaptive.  Just the
megafauna, like Homo sapiens, is not.

Loren

Reply via email to