Thanks for those references Keith, they will be very useful. I am in an unstable phase in regards to my position on Ecological Sustainability and population. If we are in fact in denial and consequentially get it wrong we and the rest of biodiversity may only survive in pockets, despite what WE do the poor may destroy the biosphere in THEIR attempt to survive. Even the references you gave in regards to food production (and they are amongst the best) leave an after taste of closure, of hope rather than reason. The food import figures you quote may indicate the capacity of the populations concerned to pay for imports including food and I'm sure that you are aware of this aspect, indeed that is my real concern. If we were right why did we go to such convolutions to justify our position. One could argue that the world never was sustainable simply because starvation related disease always existed. As it stands the fat or greedy fail to leave enough to feed the poor and that means that the world does NOT produce enough food to go around. Until I observe a change in the way wealth, and food, are distributed I must insist that we do all we can to increase the total production of food and services to humans. When so many depend on the scraps from a rich man's table the apparent solution is more food for the rich resulting in more scraps for the poor. We are attempting to reduce our waste and effective consumption by recycling, while we are at it we reduce our environmental impact. These are good things. We should, though, take care that cleaner production at the farm level results in productivity gains per hectare not losses or increased cost. For political purposes we may talk of reducing environmental costs and even put a dollar value on environmental gain, in reality it has no dollar value unless you can collect it and distribute it to the needy. In Australia at least there has been a steady move away from the spirit of the Rio Declaration, so much so that the official definition of Ecological Sustainability lacks any reference to poverty or social equity. Many environmental projects have and are causing economic distress to the growing ranks of Australia's poor. The reaction will not be good, either the community will rebel or the social and economic divide will widen, either way the environment will loose. I hope that the Earth Summit 2002 may be the watershed, certainly some of the concerns expressed by commissioners as they prepare indicate that I am not alone in my misgivings. It may be that the haves are not willing to share. If that is the case, the have-nots can hardly be expected to contribute to an improvement in our quality of life. On this forum we work at the practical end of sustainability and maybe that's our share but sometimes the practical people need to moderate the ideologues. Humans have got it terribly wrong before but imagine a mass extinction of species caused by a resource/human population crisis precipitated by environmental idealists who seemed to think that the poor would gracefully depart. How embarrassing! A quote from Indira Gandhi: " We do not wish to impoverish the environment any further, and yet we cannot for a moment forget the grim poverty of large numbers of people. Aren't poverty and need the greatest polluters? How can we speak to those who live in villages and in slums about keeping the oceans and rivers and air clean when their own lives are contaminated at the source? The environment cannot be improved in conditions of poverty. Nor can poverty be eradicated without the use of science and technology." Any assistance with this moral dilemma appreciated. Regards from Harry
Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Please do NOT send "unsubscribe" messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
