Sorry for this timewarp to Dec 6, when I first attempted to post the
attached. I have changed servers (new email addr), and had difficulty
setting parameters for list subscriptions.
John C. makes his points well in this post. The commonweal, though,
needs more than an apportionment plan for sustained well-being of humans
and the Commons (habitat). Here's the dated post:
------------------------------------------------------------------
I think Deborah Middleton's point about the unsustainability of
developing (growing?) our way out of human problems should not be
dismissed. Most know my position on current population overshoot of at
least 300%. Brad noted this point. Arthur posted Chapmans recent piece
from which I quote:
> Furthermore, say the critics, the foundational premise of the WTO and
> other advocates of globalization is unending economic growth and
> consumption, with the single and unchallengeable model of the United
> States as the paradigm that should be emulated around the world. This
> points to environmental suicide. It's unthinkable that the billions
> of people we expect to greet in the next century should all be
> encouraged to strive for the American dream of a suburban house, a
> car and everything that Wal-Mart or Sears sells. Under that model,
> the human race would devour the Earth very rapidly, as we seem to be
> doing already.
>
> The prospect that every person on Earth should be turned into a clone
> of the average American middle-class consumer is terrifying and
> abhorrent to many people who treasure the diversity of human culture,
> which is rapidly eroding.
>
> When the promises of abundance and the easy consumer life are
> combined with the realities of environmental constraints and
> deepening income inequality, the critics say, we are setting
> ourselves up for huge future conflicts, not sustainable world peace.
It may boil down to choosing actions which make you 'feel better', or
those which decrease probabilities of greater suffering (quantitatively
and qualitatively) in the future. These can be the same, but my
experience is that that is rarely the case. Taking in stray cats or
dogs, for example, does little to reduce the numbers of them suffering
in the future.
Voluntary simplicity is a hard sell when the tidal wave of humanity
seeks more secure material lives. Jay Hanson and I have quoted Garrett
Hardin's idea regarding population reduction before (applies to wasteful
living too): "mutual coercion, mutually agreed upon". The alternative is
first coercion of the many by the few, then of all by all trying to
survive in insufficient habitat. Nasty future of work.
Steve
