Aaron,

I, too, find this conversation stimulating :-) I'd like to address a few things you brought up, though:

"Yes, gift economy's do belong in the villages, which is exactly how these people were living until very recently. Most of rural Africa, Asia and South America has lived like this for hundreds of years and done ok."

... well, maybe ok by some standards -- not ok by others. What about polio? What about malaria? What about doctors and hospitals? How do you cure polio without a vaccine, how do you guard against mosquitos without a mosquito net, how do you treat the sick and injured without doctors and hospitals, how many chickens is a polio vaccine / mosquito net worth, what if you don't have any chickens, and even more importantly, would said polio vaccine or mosquito net (or even hospitals) ever have been developed if it weren't for economic systems developing beyond simple gift economies?

"That is until people deiced it would be better to grow coffee beans instead of food, or GM soy beans, or slash and burn rainforest's to graze cattle."

The key word here is "decided" -- as in, _they_ decided, and there are all sorts of valid reasons for making this decision. One of the principle tenets of economics is that everyone wants to maximize their own utility i.e. everyone wants to make their lives better, and everyone will determine the "betterness" in different ways. If a farmer who is very poor decides that he can make the life of himself and his family better by growing a different crop, or even by cutting down rainforest, that is _their_ decision, not ours. While I completely agree that rainforest loss is a very big problem, telling the poor farmer that they can't do what they want with their own land (esp. if it's to bring themselves and their families out of poverty) is not the answer. It would be very cruel to show a poor farmer something that would make the lives of himself and his family better, yet then say "but you're a farmer, you can't afford it, and we won't let you grow different crops or cut down trees in order to afford it." To deny someone the capability to make their lives better is tantamount to slavery in many ways.

"They've gotta farm and share like they've always done, and we've gotta encourage that since its in their best interests and their environment's."

_They've_ got to farm and share? As in, a different set of standards is placed on them than we place on us? As in, we don't have to, but _they_ do? As in, we can live our way, but _they_ should be "encouraged" to live their way, even if they think that we have the better life? And somehow, denying them the opportunity to make their lives better is in their "best interests?" They're people -- just like us. They should be afforded every opportunity to make their lives better, just like we have been -- anything else is a double standard.

If we want to preserve our rainforests and our environment (and I certainly do) while helping to bring the worlds' poor out of poverty (and I certainly do), it is _we_ who need to set the example, not the third world.

Regards,

John

Falling You - exploring the beauty of voice and sound
www.fallingyou.com