Take one example. Norway had a moratorium on fishing in its waters and now has a thriving, still controlled fishing fleet with sustainable fish stocks in its seas. The European Union insists on a free market for fishing, poorly implemented conservation policies and faces the drastic decline of both its fishing industry and its fish stocks.
Clearly then we need less state control, less regulation and then allow competitive markets to sort this thing out for us. 2030 sounds a reasonable estimate for this.
It is as bad as it implies. We'll need the following:
1. Population reduction.
2. A rejection of a growth oriented, consumerist culture and the adoption of a steady state, sustainable culture.
3. A realignment of cultural values away from anthropocentrism and technocentrism toward that of ecocentrism.
Originally posted by rwingett It is as bad as it implies. We'll need the following:
1. Population reduction.
2. A rejection of a growth oriented, consumerist culture and the adoption of a steady state, sustainable culture.
3. A realignment of cultural values away from anthropocentrism and technocentrism toward that of ecocentrism.
Thirty years ago, the chicken littles were projecting that all fossil fuels would be used up by the turn of the millennium, and that human kind would starve at about the same time.
Originally posted by KazetNagorra And don't forget:
5. Self-important righteousness.
Is the earth's carrying capacity unlimited in your opinion? Can we support 10 billion people with ever increasing levels of consumption? I think the article is correct in that we have already exceeded a sustainable level of consumption and that we are beginning to seriously impact the earth's ability to regenerate those resources. And things are getting worse on a daily basis. Unless we quickly and drastically modify our behavior, I foresee a grim future with collapsing ecosystems and populations. We can either voluntarily adopt the positions I mentioned earlier, or we will be unwillingly forced into them later.
Originally posted by rwingett Is the earth's carrying capacity unlimited in your opinion? Can we support 10 billion people with ever increasing levels of consumption? I think the article is correct in that we have already exceeded a sustainable level of consumption and that we are beginning to seriously impact the earth's ability to regenerate those resources. And things are getting wor ...[text shortened]... ily adopt the positions I mentioned earlier, or we will be unwillingly forced into them later.
Consumption isn't "ever increasing". There are energy-saving lightbulbs, cars are much more efficient, plastics can be made from renewable materials, etc. Yes, more needs to be done. But can we support 10 billion people on this planet? Definitely. And it's not ecoterrorist whiners who will help mankind achieve that goal.
Originally posted by KazetNagorra Consumption isn't "ever increasing". There are energy-saving lightbulbs, cars are much more efficient, plastics can be made from renewable materials, etc. Yes, more needs to be done. But can we support 10 billion people on this planet? Definitely. And it's not ecoterrorist whiners who will help mankind achieve that goal.
You will never support 10 billion people in an economy based on perpetual growth. It is impossible. Your faith in the redemptive power of your vaunted technology is a panacea that alleviates you from having to make the hard choices that will be required to alter our path toward ecological devastation. Despite your technology becoming incrementally "greener" all the time, resource consumption continues to accelerate. You imagine that you can get ahead of that curve, but you can't. 10 billion people, all aspiring toward a western European level of consumption, simply cannot be sustained. Radical shifts in cultural norms for how we define "prosperity", how we choose to organize our societies and how we relate to the earth itself are going to become necessary. To continue with "business as usual", without having to inconvenience your current lifestyle, is, I'm afraid, not going to work out for very much longer.
Originally posted by rwingett You will never support 10 billion people in an economy based on perpetual growth. It is impossible. Your faith in the redemptive power of your vaunted technology is a panacea that alleviates you from having to make the hard choices that will be required to alter our path toward ecological devastation. Despite your technology becoming incrementally "greener" ...[text shortened]... ence your current lifestyle, is, I'm afraid, not going to work out for very much longer.
I see. Well, in that case I better stock up on canned food.
17 May '12 15:461 edit
Earth's resources
Back to Top