sustainable than the U.S. But is a growth rate of 0 low enough? Could
we feed and house 6 billion people if we all spent our time searching
for "Jack-in-the-Pulpits or fishing for pickerel"? That kind of rural
leisure is available to someone living in a rich country; in a poor
country, you'd
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, June 29, 2000 11:32 PM
Subject: [PEN-L:20981] Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: [Fwd: Position in the
World-System and National Emissions of] (fwd)
sustainable than the U.S. But is a growth rate of 0 low enough? Could
we feed and house 6 billion people if we all spent our time
Karl Fred wrote:
"Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual
abolition of all the distinction between town and country by a more equable
distribution of the populace over the country."
Compared to many other countries, the U.S. has a version of this,
only we call it
I just read that NY City is the largest consumer of pesticides in the state.
Now that you have that part of the agricultural system, may the rest won't be
too hard.
Doug Henwood wrote:
It's weird to hear this coming from someone who lives works on
Manhattan Island, but I'll leave that aside
Doug:
Compared to many other countries, the U.S. has a version of this,
only we call it suburban sprawl. It's ugly, and extremely dependent
on fossil fuels. How would the post-revolutionary world be different
from suburbia?
The US does not have "a version of this". When you were growing up in
