Jeff Fink wrote: > What level of reduced prosperity do you aspire to, and how much higher than > that are you living now? Will you be downgrading to the use of a library > computer? >
Absolutely not. The problem is not how well we live or can afford to live, but instead at which social and ecological cost we are achieving that standard of living. How sustainable is our standard of living. Think about that, the standard of living of your contemporaries, that of your offspring, and that of future generations. In terms of quality o life, I've noticed that I always lived better in the past: when I was a child, the air was almost unpolluted, there were plenty of clean water and vegetation around me, food was cheap and has a better quality, better taste, etc. People was maybe poorer in monetary or even in relation of the possession of material goods, but quality of life was better and was better distributed. > What standard of living do you wish to apply to the rest of us? > I'm not in the position of applying any standard of living, nor do I want to apply any standard of living to anyone, except maybe to myself and my family. > Should working hard to get ahead be a crime? > Not at all. But working hard(or not even that) and thinking only in yourself and your own well being, specially if this well being is achieved in detriment of the well being of others or the environment, it is. > Jeff > > -----Original Message----- > From: Mauro Lacy [mailto:ma...@lacy.com.ar] > Sent: Thursday, July 09, 2009 12:20 PM > To: vortex-l@eskimo.com > Subject: Re: [Vo]:Repost of: Oil Glut? > > Jones Beene wrote: > >> It gives us that window of opportunity, one or two years, to provide >> the technical "miracle" breakthrough in alternative energy which is >> what we really need to maintain the way of life we treasure so much, >> and which has been threatened by this stupid dependence on foreign oil. >> >> > Well, the "way of life you treasure so much" is actually part of the > problem, not of the solution. Your way of life has been "threatened" > because it is unsustainable, and not only at the energy level, but also > at the ecological, and social, level. Your way of life is/was possible > only because > a) there were "new territory" (resources) to conquer. That is now > practically finished. > b) there is a vast and growing number of people living in almost > complete poverty. > > Now, in front of the crisis, and instead of acknowledge this, you > pretend to find some miracle energy source to merely postpone the day of > reckoning. That's not a very wise course of action in the medium/long term. > > Your way of life is also undesirable at the aesthetic and ethical > levels. I for one don't want to live my life as a self-indulgent > gluttonous person, ignorant and disengaged of the misery of my (closer > and closer) surroundings. > > > >
