On Mon, Nov 24, 2008 at 7:41 PM, ss <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > A good friend of mine, who happens to be Udhay's cousin made a statement > that > I had not heard before when I met him a few days ago. > > He lamented that "Development and status in the world is measured in terms > of > consumption" > > The more you consume, the more developed you are considered to be, or the > higher your status in society. The irony in this statement did not really > hit > me till a couple of nights ago when I was helping my son study a chapter > in > his 10th std Social Studies textbook. The book has chapters on the economy, > industry, trade, commerce etc and quotes statistics. in every case those > statistics are compared with similar stats from a "more developed" nation > with the take home lesson being "This is the way to go". My son and his > peers - all of 15 years of age is being taught this and he will belong to a > generation that seeks to increase Indian steel consumption from x tons per > capita to 25x tons per capita, and to increase India's energy consumption > from y million kwh to 100y million kwh. > > The world will not be able to sustain this unless india actually > intimidates > and grabs resources from others. This is, of course what the West really > did, > but the West is greatly admired in these parts. > > I remember hearing EO Wilson say that the ecological footprint of an average American is around 40 acres. In other words, to support the consumption pattern of each American, requires that much of land. If we follow in their footsteps, we will need 1.2 billion x 40 acres. I don't know if we have that much land, so we may have to go out and colonize a few nearby countries :-)
Venky
