[sustran] Re: FW: [sustran] Re: sustainable transport vision for Hong Kong -collaborator needed

[Daryl]

Pascal,

Perhaps you can explain the irony you intend; there is more than one way to
interpret your message.

I see two currently possible ways to achieve a sustainable world population,
the option I prefer is increase efficiency by at least an order of
magnitude; the other is to continue the present course, run out of energy,
and have a wholesale dieoff situation and a series of bloody wars.  A third
possibility is that we will develop limitless energy sources, or aliens will
rescue us.

It sounds like you might "push the button" and wipe out the USA, if given
the chance, just to jump-start the second scenario.  Seriously though, I
believe that through technical advancement bulk consumer nations like in the
USA can continue to enjoy the present standard of living while using less
than 5 percent of the fossil energy per person; and undeveloped nations can
enjoy the same standard, and have the time and resources to achieve some
satisfaction from life other than wanton procreation.

BTW, I have not stated that there are too many people; I make the
observation that the current growth rate is not sustainable.  I believe that
everyone on this list shares this observation.

Best Regards,

Daryl Oster, et3.com Inc.    <www.et3.com>


-----Original Message-----
From: owner-sustran-discuss at jca.ax.apc.org
[mailto:owner-sustran-discuss at jca.ax.apc.org]On Behalf Of Pascal Desmond
Sent: Thursday, March 29, 2001 4:40 AM
To: sustran-discuss at jca.ax.apc.org
Subject: [sustran] FW: [sustran] Re: sustainable transport vision for Hong
Kong -collaborator needed

Like Daryl Oster, I think there are far too many people on the planet. I
believe that there are some 300 million to many and nearly all of them live
in the United States of America.

Kind regards
Pascal Desmond

P.S. Don't tell Daryl, but this is IRONY