>> > Reducing per capita pollution whilst increasing the capitas is spinning >> > wheels in the mud. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >> >> >> But the capitas are DEcreasing already in the developed world! >> (Immigration is just a shuffling around, not increasing the overall number.) >> > > 2 points: > > global pop increases by around 220,000 NET each day, so capitas are > increasing in most inhabited areas all the time. > > those migrating INTO the developed world increase their footprints > several times what it was in the 'home' country. Thus inmigration is an > additional multiplier of footprints over and above the global pop > increase growth.
Nobody denies this. But these issues have to be addressed in the developing countries. You can't blame the Swiss (eco-footprint) for the immigrants. >> If humans are steered by their reptilian brain, why is the population >> growth in developed countries (without immigration) already negative? > > Some reasons: people with a fairly comfortable life, increasing womens > status, & only 2% labor needed for farming, found 2 wage earners more > satisfying to the life of consumption. The cost of educating, feeding, > and clothing kids in the developed world is very high, so few in the > middle classes opted for more than replacement fertility. Note, the > demands for pleasures like sex- protected or not-, good food, travel, > hobbies, status...are extensions of reptilian desires. They are > modified/fine tuned by culture and environment. But if the caveman propaganda is right, shouldn't the drive to multiply as much as possible overweigh? The cost is not really an argument because there still is the social state in Europe. Long-term unemployed people with 5 kids (or more) are a possibility and do exist, although much much rarer than the caveman propaganda would suggest. >> Well, let's see: www.footprintnetwork.org --> About Us --> At A Glance: >> >> "Our efforts are fueled by a future vision in which human demand >> on nature is monitored as closely as the stock market." > > HA! English isn't your first language, so you are excused. They are > pushing for a new vision. Implied above is their negative view that > closely watching the stock market is misguided. (insert mentally: "is > now" at the end of the above sentence.) If closely watching the stock market (now) is misguided, then their phrase says that monitoring human demand on nature in the future is also misguided. Sorry, this doesn't make sense in any language. No, they obviously WANT human demand on nature to be monitored closely. That's okay with me, but I object to their comparison with the stock market (and their metrics), because monetarizing nature is the wrong approach that brought the world into the environmental mess in the first place! This approach reveals their true motives and methods -- those of the stock gambler. Which is expressed in the function of "carbon emissions trading". >> There you have it: That's the language of stock-broker speculators. > > Funny! The implications are pretty sad. > > I didn't find that. But I know that the president of the Global Footprint > > Network foundation in Switzerland is André Hoffmann, who happens to be > > vice-president of pharma-chemical corporation Hoffmann-LaRoche in Basel -- > > a polluter boss if there ever was one. > > If you think people AREN'T mono dimensional robots, then maybe he is not > all bad. Some of us depend on those pharmaceuticals to keep us going. I have compared the products and I must say that his products make people more ill than healthy, even if you leave aside the environmental impacts. > And you are using an ad hominem argument here, tarring him with the > brush of all polluting industries (which ones aren't?) No, I have looked at this specific individual, and it is on-topic. And ad-hominem argument would be to say, for instance, that he's gay (I'm not saying this at all, just an example). Which industries aren't polluting? Well, there are differences. The point is, you wouldn't want the CEO of "Meatpackers Inc." to be president of a Vegetarian Foundation, would you? Even if he personally would be a vegetarian, it wouldn't be credible. It would look like a 5th column to subvert the Foundation's alleged purpose to serve Meatpackers Inc. And that just happens to be the case with Hoffmann-LaRoche and carbon trading. What a coincidence... > You may have the last word. Feel free to reply. Chris ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ SpamWall: Mail to this addy is deleted unread unless it contains the keyword "igve". _______________________________________________ Futurework mailing list [email protected] https://lists.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework
