Quote:
Originally Posted by Christ
I believe the question is whether they would continue to limit themselves to what they're already experiencing if another option were as easily available as their current lifestyle?
IOW - Would they keep having 3.8 KpW, or as food supply/energy availability increases, would they continue to resolve their lifestyles back to their previous levels?
Looking at typical US consumption, I'd have to suggest the latter.
People tend to get more of something, and instead of conserving it, or making it stable and sustainable, spend it that much quicker until they're back in the same spot, only probably worse off in the event of a disaster.
Pay raises are a big one... People get pay raises, and instead of packing away some of that money, they take on another bill. Even though they were barely making it before, the pay raise enables them to keep their head above water, which isn't what they're used to, so the revert to the previous lifestyle by squandering the new income.
I suppose I'm saying that the most likely conclusion is that they've been doing this for so long that they'll likely continue it given another choice, even if that choice is just as simple to adapt as their current lifestyle.
|
What if you tweak/reverse your question? What impact does wealth have on resource consumption? Energy/resource consumption tends to correlate with wealth (although this can vary by a factor of ~3-4), so if people in Haiti were wealthier they would tend to hoover up more in the way of resources like the wealthier countries in the world do. Since they're very poor on average, they don't consume many resources.
It may be that people behave more based on the situation they're in than based on what sort of person they are, for instance it could be that anyone would be a Hitler given the right circumstances, but that doesn't mean it's O.K. for the people doing most of the damage to criticize people doing less damage.