Message-ID: <199610071537.QAA03105@mail.uva.nl> Date: Mon, 7 Oct 1996 16:37:26 +0100 From: Grant Ballard-Tremeer <mailto:B.Tremeer@MAIL.UVA.NL> Subject: Re: Sustainability To: Multiple recipients of list DEVEL-L <mailto:DEVEL-L@AMERICAN.EDU>
Bob,A discussion of values is a little different from a discussion of causes. There was no mention of good or bad in my previous submission. From a normative point of view we would not (and could not) carry your argument (tongue in cheek as it may infact be) to the conclusion that war is good. There is after all more than one reason we value the environment: human welfare (health, material and non-material well-being) and the intrinsic value of nature (biodiversity etc) are two. The current "Sustainable Development" fashion is possibly an attempt to satisfy both these values. The debate is around how to balance human needs (and wants) and nature needs...
Grant
At 10:59 7-10-96 -0400, you wrote: >On Mon, 7 Oct 1996, Grant Ballard-Tremeer wrote, in part:
>
>> Environmental pressure = welfare x population x technology
>>
>> If we look at fuelwood scarcity, for example, we can see problems with
>> practices which have continued unchanged for thousands of years in less
>> developed countries. These are caused purely as a result of population
>> pressure. Population growth in these areas are not merely a result of
>> western medicine, I think.
>
>Mr. Ballard-Tremeer,
>
>A correct and cogent, but perhaps unpopular idea.
>
>An additional point to be made is that solar cookers and more efficient
>stoves, both of which are "technology", are not given credit as technology
>being "good" for reducing the need for fuel.
>
>A more far fetched idea, but equally as "logical", is to consider "peace"
>"bad".
>
>Not having war to control population (combat related deaths, less fathers,
>infant deaths from malnutrition and stress) the population increases.
>Increased population harms the environment.
>
>Q.E.D., "peace" is "bad" because it results in harm to the environment .
>
>-Is this a case of the "herd" being to large because of a loss of "natural
>predators"?
>-Should the "herd" be culled for it's own good? It would "save" the
>environment.
>
>>From the far (out) right...
>
>Bob
------------------------------------------------------------- Grant Ballard-Tremeer fax: +31 20 525 6272 mark clearly c/o EPCEM Weesperstraat 47 k.16; 1018DN; Amsterdam; The Netherlands email: mailto:B.Tremeer@mail.uva.nl mailto: btremeer@hagar.mech.wits.ac.za