"Warwick Michael Dumas" wrote in message
om...
snip

It depends. I think once it starts to be just the rich left in little
havens of relative environmental quality, it'll be the poor who will
have to undergo inconvenience so that those havens for the rich, the
remains of the environment, are kept going. The opposite way round
from today. Then sustainability may actually happen, since obviously
it's the rich that are always in charge. Just the inconvenience for
the poor of sustainability may well be dramatic, vying with
environmental degradation to be the main cause of their misery; in
contrast to it just being a matter of applying common sense, as
sustainability is for the affluent and their leaders today.


And the solution to this is to make the poor poorer by removing their source
of income? Its only the rich that can afford to let wildlife prosper, the
poor person will kill the last panda in order to feed his starving children.

--
Tumbleweed

Remove my socks before replying (but no email reply necessary to newsgroups)