There's no alternative. I suppose we'll have to settle for the lesser of two evils: i.e., more and more women will enjoy rights equal to men's, and all of us will weather climate change together, except you coastal creatures will suffer more than me in Ohio. :->
On 5/9/06, Jordan Hayes <jmhayes at j-o-r-d-a-n.com> wrote:
> Yoshie writes:
>
> > urbanization and industrialization tend to bring
> > more energy-intensive lives and push up per capita energy use.
>
> Would energy-intensive lives still be a big deal if, magically, we found
> a way to power everything without burning things? Or is it only the
> environmental side-effect that's bad in your opinion?
I suppose there could be a technically feasible solution, but the problem is that we are nowhere close to political conditions that would allow us to implement any technical solution to climate change even if we had one at hand. We are not even using proven conservation techniques.
On 5/9/06, tfast <tfast at yorku.ca> wrote:
> Depends, Urban density can actually alow for a more efficient use of
> resources and energy. Think of public transit for example. It is really
> suburban sprawl which is the resource hog.
The Chinese and Indians, unlike Americans, love urban living more than suburban living. So there is hope. But is that enough?
-- Yoshie <http://montages.blogspot.com/> <http://mrzine.org> <http://monthlyreview.org/>