"Cordell, Arthur: #ECOM - COMÉ" wrote: > > Cordell responds to Middleton responding to Cordell. [snip] > Bringing standards of living down to (choose your country) will not solve > issues related to sustainable development. Bringing misery to the > 'developed' countries will not bring the desired outcome. [snip] I agree with Arthur. Personally, the best way to get *me* to help others is first for me to have my own needs met. Example: At work, one of the things that gives me the most pleasure is helping others to learn and do their jobs more effectively -- *But* only if I have the time to do this. If helping somebody else means I have to work late to meet some deadline, then I resent the deadline imposers sufficiently that I can hardly help "contain myself" to get their deadline monkey off my back before I do something that gets me fired. And the needy coworker, who, under humane conditions, I would like nothing better than to help, now becomes just another impingement. > Arthur Cordell > > D. Middleton responds to Cordell (below) > > How do we define higher or lower standards of development? Does upwards > harmonization equal access to a consumer society that is inherently > unsustainable? Is a simpler life style of lesser quality? Where has Jay Hanson ( http://www.dieoff.com/ ) gotten to? There is little or nothing inherently unsustainable about the U.S./Canadian/ Japanese/French/... standard of *living* -- provided you don't also want to maximize the number of warm squirming bodies on this small planet. Is a simpler life style (esp. stopping at, at most, one child) of lesser quality? [snip] > I find it is an interesting paradox to support the move of work, access to > income and development of markets to less developed countries such as > those in Central and South America and at the same time see the loss of > jobs in Canada occur. It is fortunate for some and unfortunate for others. "It is fortunate for some and unfortunate for others." What isn't? A global thermonuclear holocaust would apparently be good for grasses and cockroaches.... And, as I have read, the 100 years after the Black Death were one of the best times before 1900 to be alive in Europe (due to the labor shortage which drove wages up) -- *if* you were one of the survivors. What's the point here? > > Our definitions of lifestyle and quality of life needs to be redefined. I agree. Bill Bradley's wife is a "[Hermann] Broch scholar". Imagine a world in which the American first lady wasn't just "schooled" but also cultured. Imagine a world in which Everyman (woman, child) was at least at George Steiner level of human development. Such people do not thrive in straitened material conditions. But, even further *down* Maslow's hierarchy of needs: "Extreme conditions... don't make pleasant people." --Patricia Hampl, NYT Book Review, 26Jan97, p.13 > > Deborah Middleton > > MES Faculty of Environmental Studies > York University To what standard of living has the author harmonized herself? (Not that I mean to imply this is an ultimate question, for we know that Gandhi chose voluntary simplicity for himself --> *and also* for his unwilling family!) On the other hand, we surely could cut a lot of resource consumption without diminishing our standard of living one iota (a prime example would be to restructure middle-class American life so that the majority of people could walk to work and to all the other places in their daily lives. This would eliminate the need for automobiles, which do not really increase our standard of living but rather are (as the cliche goes): currently "necessary evils". Eliminating commuting would even *improve* our standard of living, by giving persons more hours of liveable life each day. \brad mccormick -- Prove all things; hold fast that which is good. (1 Thes 5:21) Brad McCormick, Ed.D. / [EMAIL PROTECTED] 914.238.0788 / 27 Poillon Rd, Chappaqua NY 10514-3403 USA ------------------------------------------------------- <![%THINK;[XML]]> Visit my website: http://www.cloud9.net/~bradmcc/
