>I support bringing up the the standards of the world's
>poor to a level of not mere substantance of minimal
>adequacy but actual comfort - cushiness if you weill
>-- enjoyed by at least the unionized US or European
>working classes, and bringing down the lifestyles of
>the richest members of our society to one no higher
>that than enjoyed by partners at large law firms.
>
>Since further literalness seems necessary, I would
>like to see more public transportation and less
>reliance on automobiles, more shared us of durable
>resources -- maybe washing machines -- less subsidies
>for suburban sprawl, etc.
Whenever someone brings up the subject that perhaps not everyone can have two automobiles, an SUV, and a 5 bedroom home someone will inevitably claim this is depriving the working class of its aspirations. If we cannot even agree that the planet is unable to sustain that level of consumption we are very far from being able to do the things we must. This of course brings cries about how Malthusian this outlook is (it's not) or accusations of advocating Luddism or asceticism, neither of which I do. We must begin to honestly ascertain what level of consumption is both possible and desirable. They are not necessarily the same Since our knowledge is imperfect our estimate will necessarily be imperfect but it will give us an estimate. I don't see much work being done in this area however. One problem that will surface if a "sustainable consumption level" is ever ascertained is of course distribution. How will we ration our resources? I'm sure many will advocate a market approach but that will simply make the current problems worse. We are in a big mess and the solution will not look good from the viewpoint of people raised with the expectation of limitless growth. The following generations will not be hindered by that baggage.
>And, yes, you will note that I probably would tolerate
>a whole lot more inequality than most of you. Before
>you denounce me as a bourgeois liberal, remember I
>wear the label proudly. But even if it is not as equal
>as you might like, you'd have to admit tata it would
>be a big improvement.
The problem with unequal entitlement to resources is that it creates anger and resentment. Only by allowing ever person on the planet the exact same "slice of the pie" will we ever be able to escape from this. Again people raised to hold material possession in some level of esteem, regardless of that level, will have the most difficult time with this concept. The proceeding generation, raised to believe equal entitlement is a birthright and not the product of how intelligent, beautiful, strong, or motivated they are will accept it without a problem.
>But we won't get this. We won't the get Bangladeshi
>SUV's either. We will get further polization,
>continents devassated by AIDs and war, sweatshop
>labor, fundamentalist terrorism, first world
>imperialist self-righteousness. We will get the
>imporatttion of third world living standards home. In
>short, we're fucked.
I try to keep a positive outlook but too often I do believe this may be humankinds fate. I try not to allow myself the luxury of this attitude.
John Thornton
--- avast! Antivirus: Outbound message clean. Virus Database (VPS): 0503-0, 01/18/2005 Tested on: 1/18/2005 6:18:23 PM avast! - copyright (c) 1988-2004 ALWIL Software. http://www.avast.com