It's not a ridiculous idea...just very limited. For example that
"footprint" should be measured in 3 space not 2 space.
FWP.
On Sat, 30 Jan 1999, Melanie Milanich wrote:
> Re: William Rees and his "ecological footprint" . Most people still
> don't "get" it. The Globe and Mail had an editorial yesterday
> ridiculing him and maintaining everyone's right to go to Florida for
> the winter and to drive a van. They see no limits to the size of the
> pie, as U.S. consumers who are now spending more than they earn to
> keep fueling their economy. The Globe's article ridiculed Rees for
> presuming to know that "happiness" does not depend on material wealth.
> To be rich is glorious. But to be happy? Melanie
>
> Steve Kurtz wrote:
>
> > Durant wrote:
> >
> > > At the moment it is a big enough pie,
> >
> > Not according to thousands of scientists including majority of living Nobel
> > winners. Not according to Wm. Rees & Mathis Wackernagel, _The Ecological
> > Footprint_. Their estimate is that 2Billion is maximum population
> > sustainable at the *current global average per capita consumption level*.
> > (NOT the western/northern/developed level) If you won't dispute their data
> > and calculations in a systematic way, you are merely indicating that you
> > wish it were otherwise.
> >
> > The DAILY loss of species, the daily net drop in aquifers, topsoil, trees,
> > marine life, ...are not refutable. Your plea is like a tape in a loop,
> > replayed ad infinitum without evidence.
> >
> > Mid-winter break for me; next episode in Spring.
> >
> > Steve
>
>
>
*** [EMAIL PROTECTED] Send "Subscribe Future.Cities" to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] See http://users.uniserve.com/~culturex ***
