Chimp_Logic wrote on Oct 6
th, 2013 at 8:25am:
Phemanderac wrote on Oct 5
th, 2013 at 5:13pm:
Sorry too mate, Quadrant is just a wee bit too ideologically based for me to have any confidence in it.
Just being up front with you. I think the point that Singer (who I don't totally agree with) is making, by the way, is that there are more than enough humans on the planet, so a few dying off won't be that cataclysmic in the big picture.
Depends which few die off. There is a huge discrepancy between citizens of different countries with respect to carbon footprints and damage to the planet.
Take for example the USA, it makes up about 5% of the global population and yet consumes about 1/3 of the worlds resources and generates about 30% of the worlds pollution and waste.
Distribution and access is not equal and has always presented problems for human civilizations.
As finite resources become scarce, humans can either adapt their social structures and technology to exploit renewable and more equitable systems, or they can perpetuate wars and shrink, maybe even vanish.
Interesting to note that a planet with about 1 billion Americans has a similar ecological foot print as about 9 billion average Africans or about 6 billion chinese.
So when people refer to population explosions and global problems they tend to view each global citizen equally which they aren't.
The unfairness of the divide between rich/poor, access/non access I think will always be there. However, that is the way things are, no, the way we (our species) have made them. I make no claim as to what is fair, but, the harsh reality of the comment is, as an entire species we are prolific and, as such, can apparently afford some losses.
The point still stands, a few dying off won't be cataclysmic.
Your point is valid to, as there is bound to be some inherent unfairness in who dies off. Let's face it though, no matter who, some would claim unfairness anyway....
What my concern is though, that rampant destruction of our environment (the only environment that we can be sustained in) may cause far more wide spread loss of life. Not only human life, but the other critters that we seem to think exist for us to mess with. We will be the arrogant architects of our own demise and many other species to boot. We overstretch our rights a wee bit in this.
...the point is that the people most likely to be casualties or "die off" as you describe it, aren't the people with the extreme environmentally destructive foot print.
I see the solution as one of a revolution in the way the west lives, and an acknowledgement by the developing nations and the third world that the current western ideology of corporatized short term profits at all costs and the individual being paramount in everything, is not a sustainable way to live.
In fact the west can learn a lot about sustainability and respect for the environment and ecosystems from the third world and many parts of the developing world. After all it used to value those standards and ethics.
Forum
Pages: 
