>
>Since the circuit of matter exchanged between man and nature has only
>ever increased it is hard to know what 'resource depletion' you are
>talking about.
Im making some assumptions here, but Im betting there is not an infinite supply of, for example, oil in the ground. Or clean water. Or clean air. Or clean soil. Or arable land. But they are only assumptions, true.
Similarly 'environmental catastrophe' has the character
>of a religious belief - a secularised day of judgement.
Religous belief? Now that is insulting! But pigeon hole it however you will. Im no biologist or ecologist, but it would seem intuitively correct that in an ecosystem in which species are interdependant upon not only the environment to survive but also each other, depleting or destroying portions of either COULD have catastrophic consequences. Do I know for certain? Of course not. But it seems a hell of a risk to take to in order to enjoy the gleaming prizes of the modern age you are so enamored of.
>But since you seem to object to the use of resources that has so
>palpably improved the standard of living, it is hard to know why you
>would object to being 'thrust into those barbaric conditions' of their
>absence.
Are these improvements as universal as you would like us to think? And what costs are they exacting from us? WOuld not some prudence seem in order considering the stakes? And is it a zero sum game, we must use our resources the way we have been or slip back into "barbarism?" Perhaps a prudent middle path could be found?
Jason RIce
->James Heartfield
>
>Great Expectations: the creative industries in the New Economy
>is available from Design Agenda,
>4.27 The Beaux Arts Building,
>10-18 Manor Gardens,
>London, N7 6JT
>Price 7.50 GBP + 1GBP p&p
________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com