>Unfortunately, it isn't just an issue of profits, quality of life, and
>"fairness." It's also an issue of survival. Is it right that some people
>in this world have luxuries galore while others toil and suffer in the most
>deplorable conditions imaginable? Certainly not! But what makes anyone
>think that screwing with the ecosphere is going to improve anything? Will
>it be more "fair" when we've ALL plundered our natural world for a few
>years' false prosperity?
>We're touching on one of the raw-root issues of the whole ecological
>movement here. I for one don't have an easy answer. But I think we're all
>aware of what ISN'T the answer.
Miranda:
Certainly, the life support system is a minimum requirement -
what quality of life can every one of five and a half billion
people have while sustaining the planet for humans. Beyond that,
what quality of life can every one of five and a half billion
people have while sustaining the planet for all other species. Or
something in between. Then factor in population growth and
technological advancement.
I suppose if we had an answer to those questions we could tell what
isn't the answer. Certainly we can't keep doing what we're doing -
raping the land, etc. Maybe technology can provide ways to sustain
an adequate amount of wilderness while improving the quality of
life for all. (What's "adequate.") Maybe it can't.
Maybe everybody going back to hunter-gatherer and agrarian life
styles would work. I seriously doubt it, due to existing
population size.
Both directions (forward and backward) have their environmental
advantages and disadvantages. Technology provides pollution
control methods, but currently produces a lot of carbon dioxide
which may be a problem. Agrarian life styles (without machines)
produce far less CO2, but have pollution probems of their own
(sewage, etc).
Either way, I think we have to allow ALL people on earth the
opportunity for whatever quality of life can be sustained.
Otherwise, wars and mass migrations are certain to continue.
Al
