While I agree with your logic, Tracy (and appreciate your humor), my
original point is unaffected. It is not necessary for me to be
statistically precise and academically rigorous in order to merely point
out that most citizens of industrialized nations (a.k.a. "consumers") are
indirectly responsible for much more ecological "net change" than most
citizens of so-called Third World countries.
Yes, developing countries are notorious for destroying their environment,
largely because they don't have the money to invest in, for lack of a
better word, cleanliness, or because they're so bent on playing economic
"catch up" that they ignore the ecological consequences.
But the economies of these countries are largely dependent upon
industrialized nations. Much of their industry is, in fact, merely an
extension of First World industry, and exists in order to serve First World
consumers.
That's speaking on a large scale -- industries and nations. My point was
more directed toward the scale of the individual. If you live in relative
poverty in a Third World country, no matter how much you shit in a river,
you are not going to be able to touch the amount of ecological change that
the average American can effect. Think about all the objects you've ever
owned, Tracy. Think about the resources that went into the manufacture of
those objects, and the concommitant ecological change. The average Third
World citizen will never accrue a fraction of this stuff.
I use Americans as an example because we tend to consume more than anyone else.
____________________________________________________________________________
Tyson Vaughan memetic engineer
tvaughan@ux.accesscom.net graphic designer
"The way up and the way down are one and the same." - Heraclitus