At the highest level setting a sustainable level for human population and
human consumption is the challenge.
This would be allowed a human existence of hundreds of thousands of years,
if not millions, allowing thousands of successive generations of people to
live in the highest quality environment, where contact with 'nature' is an
everyday occurrence, and doesn't just occur at the weekends in theme parks.
That, I take it is, the Green ideal: humans-in-nature, nature-with-humans.
Against this you have to set the capitalist ideal of as many people and as
much consumption as possible in the shortest possible time, which will
inevitably lead to ecological collapse and a rather short history for
humanity.
The green ideal is the one which will allow the greater number of
individuals to live in total, in the long run, and with a higher quality of
life.
As I have been typing this, my partner spotted a Wedge-tailed Eagle soaring
over the house, the first time we have seen one here in 16 years. Omen or
what?
:-)
John Leonard
David,
Your rant is well justified.
Perhaps you could help me out. I have been asking many people to
define 'sustainable' even at conferences with sustainability as a theme.
I know that language changes but ....
Regards,
Alan
===============================
www.birding-aus.org
birding-aus.blogspot.com
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, send the message:
unsubscribe (in the body of the message, with no Subject line)
to:
===============================
===============================
www.birding-aus.org
birding-aus.blogspot.com
To unsubscribe from this mailing list,send the message:
unsubscribe(in the body of the message, with no Subject line)
to:
===============================
===============================
www.birding-aus.org
birding-aus.blogspot.com
To unsubscribe from this mailing list,
send the message:
unsubscribe
(in the body of the message, with no Subject line)
to:
===============================
|
