>Six Billion People and Counting!
>I think that the real issue is the
>amount of resource depleation and pollution PER person. The
>statistic that sticks out in my mind is that an average person
>(whatever that is!) in a "developed" country uses 12 (that's
>times the resources of an average "developing" country person. In
>other words, if I have one child, that child is the same as my
>counterpart in Bangladesh or Nigeria having 12 children. Wow.
>Now, one wonders, who is *really* overpopulating the earth?
that's the same logic, as if i would argue: if i put one foot in
a dish of freezing water and the other one in a dish of water with
80 C, then ON AVERAGE i should feel quite comfortable...
assuming, that ONE child in bangladesh has the same human "value"
than ONE child in germany, japan or the usa (you wanna argue with
it's bangladeshi parents ??), then ONE child in our country
steals ALL the resources which are also there for the other 11
children somewhere else.... the FIRST sentence in the FIRST
paragraph of our german constitution reads "all people are born
equal" and i assume, i'll also find that in the american
constitution. rights are either given (that's the human way) or
they are taken (that's the bloody way), so these equal rights
better should be given or else they will be taken some day.
imagine 3 billion chinese coming in small boats over the ocean
landing on your west coast....
you should know better since 1792 (in which case you were on the
"kings are not taken away by miracles"
(thomas paine - common sense)
>Another part of the story... Statistics also clearly show that as
>infant mortality rates decline and the opportunity for education
do they ? which statistics (i mean for education opportunity) ?
can i have the source please ? and how do you understand
"opportunity"? i'm sure, even YOU have the OPPORTUNITY to buy a
private boeing 747..
>But that's because they don't agonize over how they will buy more
>health insurance (no one can afford it anyway), how they will pay
>for a decent education (doesn't seem attainable anyway),
but THAT contradicts your statistics above, right ?
resembles me on the ill-logic is, that your government argued
in kyoto, that overall world-pollution is the same, if you are
allowed to INCREASE your own pollution, if you pay for DECREASING
pollution in other countries. pollution is ALWAYS the result of
consumption - mostly known as luxury... the name of the "game" is
called "emission trading".
INDUSTRY GROUP ADVOCATES FLEXIBLE EMISSIONS TRADING
Emissions trading must be unrestricted and flexible if the
United States is to meet its targets under the Kyoto Protocol,
according to a report commissioned by the industry-backed Global
Climate Coalition. The United States hopes to use emissions trading
to meet their target of a sevenpercent reduction in greenhouse gas
emissions below 1990 levels. Full Story:
To Unsubscribe: Email firstname.lastname@example.org with the command
"unsubscribe sanet-mg". If you receive the digest format, use the command
To Subscribe to Digest: Email email@example.com with the command
All messages to sanet-mg are archived at: