Willy Eckerslike - 2/18/2005 11:13 AM
Botnst - 2/18/2005 2:57 AM
I just need a bit of balm for the ego with that other part.
Yes, of course the USA is the biggest spender, no argument from me.
The whole of the western civilised world is far too wasteful of resources, not just the USA.
BUT, just imagine how much money you could save if you made less pollution [:p][:p]
Certainly is a lower boundary--ship all the non-natives back to Europe, Africa, and Asia. Bugs, bunnies and American Indians rule. The worst pollution is campfires. Ahhhhh. Of course, Britain, European, African, and Asian countries would be pissed-off with a bunch of uncultured immigrants mucking about.
I think the first steps that society should take are the easy babysteps, not the culture-changing steps that will be required in a half-century or so. What I mean is that (IMO) in 50 years it wont matter what steps we take now, the world is gonna be all f**ked-up and will require (or result in) tremendous social and political upheavel--far worse than the 'War on Terror' and 'Cold War' combined.
Folks scoff about killing for oil now (which is a short-hand version of why I think we're in Iraq). Go ahead and scoff. But when the lights go out in the world's major cities, people are not going to ask politicians where the solution is coming from, they will want that solution, NOW. Powerful countries will seize what they need and invent a pretext later. Since they write the history books, their views will survive. In an environment with limited resources, that's the story of nature--red in tooth and claw. It's easy to be moral when your tummy is full and the lights are on.
But if we take the easy steps now--greater conservation, improved efficiency, seeking alternatives to oil dependency, we will cushion the terrible events that are IMO, inevitable.