Quote Originally Posted by Throbert McGee View Post
Nowadays, we are in many ways vastly more efficient at food production, but our population numbers are also vastly larger, and thus our "total environmental footprint" as a species is bigger/worse than in Paleolithic times.
Well, overall it definitely is, but I think I mentioned that magic "in that aspect alone" excuse phrase. We don't hunt for food, so even though our population is larger than in the Paleolithic, we still hunt for food much less than we used to. However, we have other adverse effects indirectly caused by the food production, especially the chemical production. And we have other areas of production which are not environmentally-friendly. Anyways, my whole point was that the living standards does not necessarily directly linked to the relative environmental harm, rather the opposite might be true. Hanna insists her logic of: "Oh, if Africa would start living like the US, our planet ecology would collapse! So, don't believe in the Capitalism which urges to live the consumerist style but believe in the Socialism which doesn't ..." and so forth. All I was trying to say that one of the major nature destruction happens in Africa. People there live in so harsh conditions that they don't find any will to care about the environment. It's the Americans and the Europeans which find time and will to collect the used batteries and dispose of them properly. The environmental impact directly depends on the TECHNOLOGY and not on the DISTRIBUTION. If the planet territory is not enough, we can take off and terraform Mars or Venus for example, or live in the donut space stations. Or whatever. The Socialism vs the Communism vs the Capitalism is mostly about the distribution of goods and services and not about care for the Mother Nature.