3 ms·
There's little value in discussing energy and carbon footprint per person when you're looking at the next 50 to 100 years. Are the Africans noble savages who a
by debacle 11y ago
There's little value in discussing energy and carbon footprint per person when you're looking at the next 50 to 100 years.
Are the Africans noble savages who are so in tune with the land that they have a smaller ecological impact? No, they desperately want better health care, clean water, and more modern amenities. They want a bigger footprint, and we shouldn't begrudge them that. In 100 years, it's very likely that the impact of a US citizen will be very close to that of an African.
There is no dichotomy between population reduction and impact reduction - most advocate both as unsustainable. This is poorly masked white guilt.
- carapace 11y agoThere is a distinction we can make between the standard of living and the means that are employed to achieve it. One example: building a modern communication grid is much less expensive today than it was when e.g. America first built out telegraphs and then telephones etc. Much less copper, etc.