John Garcia wrote: > > I suspect that people who are caught up in the daily struggle of > survival, > getting shelter, water, some grains to eat aren't placing the same weight > on > environmental issues as we in the affluent countries are.
Shelter, water and food _are_ environmental issues aren't they? But let's go back to Ronn!'s original argument; that the dirty little secret of the environmental movement is that we have too many (poor, dark skinned, non-Anglophile) people. If we use the river analogy again, would the "dirty little secret" be that there are too many people, or that more sanitary habits should be enforced? By the same token, is the key to a clean environment a reduction in the number of people or a responsible stewardship of the planet? I believe that with proper management we could sustain a much larger population than we have now, but that without proper stewardship you could have a much smaller population and _still_ screw up the environment. It's true that if the Chinese continue to adopt modern technology without heeding environmental concerns, the environment is in trouble, but the answer isn't in denying them technology, it's in convincing them that they must adopt the technology in a responsible manner. We might be able to convince them the importance of the later, but short of nuclear annihilation the former is next to impossible. Ronn!'s argument seems to imply that the environmental movement requires some sort of eugenics to succeed and I find the implication offensive. Doug _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
