[guelo]

That was an ad hominem response to the question of can we continue using resources at an ever increasing rate. That includes asking if the world can afford to bring the poor up to western living standards. They are ugly questions but it doesn't make sense to burry our heads in the sand about them.

[pg]

I don't think ad hominem is the phrase you want here. I think what you mean is, the more important question is whether we can continue to consume resources at the rate we do. And my reply to that is that creating more wealth doesn't necessarily imply consuming more resources. For example, new versions of machines often consume less power, not more.

[chacham15]

To further your point, it doesn't even necessarily imply consuming resources at all: a person using his wrench to fix a car is creating wealth without using any resources.

[mseebach]

I don't think anyone is burying their heads over this. The answer is "maybe not", but the followup is that there is absolutely no moral compass on which is would be even remotely acceptable to take even the smallest step to prevent the global poor to become as rich as we are.

[rohern]

"The answer is "maybe not", but the followup is that there is absolutely no moral compass on which is would be even remotely acceptable to take even the smallest step to prevent the global poor to become as rich as we are."

The argument -- as far as I have witnessed it -- is not about preventing the poor from becoming rich. The argument is should richer people need to suffer to effect the enrichment of the poor. Acting to prevent is not the same thing as not acting to effect.

[mseebach]

That's not very different. It implies a level of wealth that can't be made available to the poor, regardless of the fact that we have in our selflessness given it up.

The answer to "we can't afford it" is the same to many other scenarios where you can't afford something but need to get it anyway: Figure out how to make it work. Inventing non-fossil liquid fuels would make a very good start.