At 09:37 PM Tuesday 5/13/2008, jon louis mann wrote: >...reducing the standard of living of our citizens as a sound policy >was not > living in a reality-based community. > >...How do the demands of the environmentalists fare under that >analysis? > >...the advanced countries had to drop their standard of living to the >level of third world countries > >...large numbers of older people, children, folks with currently >manageable health problems, . . . all dying just like such people do >now in third world countries. > >...the resources for the rest of the world to come up to the US level >did not exist. > >...To some extent this has come about in the hollowing out of the US >middle class and the third world extremes of income distribution. >...They didn't want to hear that there might be a >technological/engineering fix. > >...the people at that meeting were the elite of the elite... > >Like maybe they think they have a right to be the ones to survive the >culling? (Sorta like so many have said that Hillary went into the >current campaign thinking she had a divine right to be the next POTUS . >. . ) >No Thanks Maru >. . . ronn! :) > >hillary does not think she has a divine right to be POTUS,
She has thought she has a right to be POTUS since at least 1992, and probably since she was in college, if not before. > although she >has not been the frontrunner for a while... she does have a right to >keep on running and raising money, at least until obama wins enough >delegates and the super delegates, plus florida and michigan can not >possibly win her the nomination. > >as for who gets to live and who dies, it should not be a matter of >elitism, or standard of living. Agreed. > we should be able to use technology >to level living standards, and improve the quality of life, But as Keith said, the people at the "Club of Rome"/"Limits to Growth" meeting didn't want to hear that. They specifically are among the elites in the environmental movement about whom I have been "ranting" since 1975 and even earlier . . . ;) > instead of >for spreading conspicuous consumption, waste and poillution to third >and fourth world countries... I agree. I think there technological fixes are possible that can bring "less developed" (which I think is the current PC term for what used to be called "third world" and "fourth world") countries up to a par with developed countries without the amount of pollution and waste and such which accompanied the rise of the first people to get to that level. No, I can't list them here now because I think many of them need to be developed. I do think that like many other things (frex the overworked examples of the Manhattan Project and putting a man on the Moon) they are the kind of things which _can_ be developed if we as humanity in general and the appropriate leaders (government, business, religious and other charitable organizations, etc.) in specific set the goal of raising everyone up to equality without waste, including frex steps such as sharing new technology with everyone rather than looking for the way to maximize profit from and power over their customers. Obviously it will take a shift in the mindset of many toward altruism rather than selfishness, but that mindset shift is what we should be doing anyway as "members of a civilization." Idealistic List Conservative (And Yes Non-Evil Religion Contributes To Making Me That Way) Maru . . . ronn! :) _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
