[pf] living within one's means - "rich" or "poor"

· I'm thinking about how the USA used to be a rich country, with lots of
resources.

· But over the last couple (or 3) generations, her people have used up so
much of what she can provide, in their attempt to live like gods, that
they're now taking what they want from other nations. Even now, I believe
Americans would have a very comfortable life if they would only live within
their means: those in the contiguous states living with whatever that can
provide, and Alaska and Hawaii within their own area and climate. The
"lower 48" would have a higher "standard of living", so Americans in Alaska
and Hawaii not willing to live within those resources would simply move to
"the mainland", reducing the curresnt excess in the last states.

· I see this possible move to something closer to sustainability (i.e.
living within the nation's own resource limits) as returning to being
"rich", as the country was at the beginning of the 20th century (I think).

· the site: Redefining Progress, has a large table, using 1996 data,
showing how much each country is bursting its seams, in the case of the
"top" nations which have an ecological footprint deficit. It is at:
http://www.rprogress.org/resources/nip/ef/deficittable1_nations.html ,
  while my copy, perhaps easier to read, is at:
http://www.geocities.com/davdd.geo/rprogress_deficittable_text.html#top 

· Later, I'll take some examples from it; this computer's about to be used
for a few hours of communicating with Switzerland (by ICQ), I believe.

David.
(David MacClement) davd@ihug.co.nz 
http://www.geocities.com/davd.geo/index.html#top
************************************************

____________________________________________________________
T O P I C A  -- Learn More. Surf Less. 
Newsletters, Tips and Discussions on Topics You Choose.
http://www.topica.com/partner/tag01