Basically, their argument was that it could not be morally expected of them to change their consumer behaviour as it would make them unhappy (if, say, they could not take all the weekend flights to Prague they'd like, or go to the theatre whenever they wanted), and it would not help "those poor miserable peasants in the developing world" either. Rather, those poor miserable etc peasants should ALL become industrial capitalist farmers, because then they could afford to go to the theatre and generally have a lifestyle like ours, too, which would make them happy. And thanks to GM and other modern technology they would probably all be able to become huge industrial farmers, too.
I think I missed something... Like for example where all the land for those industrial farmers would suddenly appear from? Or where the thousands of currently perfectly happy because landowning, selfsufficient peasants go to when they've been driven off their land by those new industrial farmers who found that there wasn't an unlimited supply of land? And nobody even questioned their way of reasoning!!!
http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/religion/moralmaze.shtml
: all these complaints about the "teething problems" at terminal 5: is flying essential to life and wellbeing? No, it isn't! But they are going on about it as if the country had suddenly run out of food or something - chaos! - catastrophe! The end of the world is nigh - we cannot fly today, we have to wait until tomorrow, and then our luggage might not arrive at the same time!
