Doug Henwood wrote:
> Eugene Coyle wrote:
>
> >Doug, you ignore the demonstration effect. What a Chez Panisse patron
> >does becomes the goal of the rest of us. The environment
> >can only be saved by stopping the rich from consuming more. And more.
> >And more. And more. And more.
>
> This is blame-shifting. It's like blaming "corporations" for
> pollution. If you live in a U.S. suburb and drive a car, your
> envinromental footprint is probably at the 90th or 95th percentile of
> the world population. It wouldn't surprise me if someone who lived in
> Berkeley and walked to Chez Panisse did less environmental damage
> than someone living in a distant suburb who drives to a McDonald's at
> the nearest mall.
I had taken the question not to be who was or was not "to blame" but
rather a fairly simple technical question (not simple to answer, but
simple to pose): at what standard of living (if conditions are even
moderately equalized) can 7 or 10 billion people live? Unless that
is reasonably high (and those who lose, if some do, can be reconciled
to that loss), then we are seemingly left with Jim Devine's eco-fascism
some "stalinist" equivalent. The question of how do we get from here
to there is as binding on those who are skeptical of the Proyect/Jones
theses as they are on Lou and Mark -- perhaps more binding.
Can we all agree that for a considerably long period the world's
population is going to hover around 10 billion, and that all non-
genocidal programs have to give at least some general answer to
the question of how those 10 billion are to be fed, clothed,
housed, entertained, etc.? And Doug, you put a lot more
emphasis on consciousness than many of us do, so you have
to give some attention to Eugene's "demostration effect,"
which holds whether or not we "blame" anyone.
Carrol
