Quote:
Originally Posted by LostCause
Great post, but I differ in viewpoint on a few areas.
My logic is that this isn't an either/or decision. I'd prefer to preserve the rainforest and the mountains, even if it means economic depression. Sowhat if a few hundred millionaires lose their motor yachts, Billy loses his lifted truck, and Bob has to convert from a McMansion to a ranch style house. People don't, or at least shouldn't need $50,000/yr to live a fulfilling, happy life. I say spread the wealth, form honest goals, and maintain them.
If Al Gore had made worthwhile suggestions at the end of an "Inconvenient Truth," people would have completely disregarded him. Imagine if he had said get rid of your car, your refrigerator, your air conditioner, all products imported outside a 25 mile radius, your TV, and your utilities. Very few Americans are going to make a sacrifice beyond extremely minor inconveniences (e.g. recycling) and blaming politicians/businesses.
|
That's not really even necessary though. With proper technology and infrastructure we could live a similar lifestyle while vastly lessening our impact on the environment. Well said though, I
do agree that given the choice between a acetic lifestyle or an exploitive one then we should give things up as you said. But most people aren't willing to make such sacrifices, so instead of asking them to, which will only lead to them ignoring us, we need to focus on things which will allow them to live a similar lifestyle while reducing their impact. In that sense I think Al Gore is spot on.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LostCause
2.) First world nations are not progressive, environmentally conscious cultures. If you mean conscious as in changing a light bulb or buying non-cfc hairspray, maybe, but not in any meaningful way. One American probably has the same environmental impact as 30 rural Indians.
|
Perhaps, but the first world is the one developing the technologies which will allow us to live with much less impact on the environment. The third world populations are quickly going through economic development with little concern for environmental impact - I don't blame them, but that's the reality of it. Also, any geo-engineering project (mirrors in space or some such) would be executed by the first world, for these reasons simply having zero children and having our next generation be imported from Nigeria would likely be worse for the environment (again, not for racial reasons, but cultural - nature vs. nurture). I'm not advocating growth in first world populations, just maintained.