me: >> BTW, it is not "quite obviously true" that the average American >> consumes too much. No empirical proposition is obviously true. It's >> only in math and logic that a proposition is obviously true -- and >> even then it's true only given the validity of its premises.
> Alright if you insist: > http://www.footprintnetwork.org/en/index.php/GFN/page/trends/us/ > > This is a statistic I pulled off a quick Google search. I am sure you > can find similar statistics for your preferred measure. Statistics are not absolute truths that are "quite obviously true" or "self-evident." I learned a long time ago that statistics are human creations, using all sorts of assumptions and therefore reflecting their creators' values and visions of the world. Some sort of argument is needed to justify a statistic -- for example, arguing that it's better than another estimate -- rather than paraphrasing Shelley and saying "Look on my [statistic], ye Mighty, and despair!" They "may very well be true" but we can't say "quite obviously true." (Having a statistic is often better than not having one, but we have to be clear about their limitations.) >> Others might argue that it's "quite obviously true" that people in >> India of China pollute too much, contributing to global warming, etc. >> out of proportion to their consumption levels. That's not obviously >> true either. > No, India China don't pollute as much as the West, in absolutely terms > and certainly not in per-capita terms. I didn't say "in per-capita terms." I said in terms of their consumption levels (pollutants per consumption good or whatever). If you don't have a serious EPA, all else constant, you're going to have a lot of pollution arising from production. > They are very probably > over-populated, ... I don't think they are. Asking about the size of the population is usually asking the wrong question. >If what you are saying is every national group probably has a part to > play in creating a more sustainable world, I agree on that. One of the > part the West needs to play is to tackle its over-consumption. the problem is that you're missing the point of Doug's missive (if I understand it): most of the people who yell and scream about "over-consumption" (1) are preaching to working-class people, telling them they don't deserve the kind of standard of living that they (the elite) enjoy; and (2) do not understand the reality of working-class living these days (Doug's specific point). If you're going to preach to people that they need to cut consumption, you should present some sort of alternative. For example, like the Sandwichman, recommend rising amount of non-paid ("leisure") time instead of simply saying "it's time to tighten your belts." -- Jim Devine / "Segui il tuo corso, e lascia dir le genti." (Go your own way and let people talk.) -- Karl, paraphrasing Dante. _______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
