Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Seeking a Cultural Revolution: From Consumerism to Sustainability
WASHINGTON - The last 50 years
have seen an unprecedented and unsustainable spike in consumption,
driven by a culture of consumerism that has emerged over that period,
says a report released Tuesday by the Worldwatch Institute. 
This consumerist
culture is the elephant in the room when it comes to solving the big
environmental issues of today, the report says, and those issues cannot
be fully solved until a transition to a more sustainable culture is
begun.
"State
of the World 2010", subtitled "Transforming Cultures: From Consumerism
to Sustainability", tries to chart a path away from what Worldwatch
president Christopher Flavin calls "the consumer culture that has taken
hold probably first in the U.S. and now in country after country over
the past century, so that we can now talk about a global consumerist
culture that has become a powerful force around the world."
In
this culture, says the book-length report, people find meaning and
contentment in what they consume, but this cultural orientation has had
huge implications for society and the planet. The average U.S.
citizens, for instance, consumes more each day, in terms of mass, than
they weigh. If everyone lived like this, the Earth could only sustain
1.4 billion people.
Flavin admits consumerism is not the only
factor driving environmental degradation but says it is one of the key
root causes on which other factors are built – and, as a cultural
framework, it is expanding.
"In India and China, for instance,
the consumer culture of the U.S. and Western Europe is not only being
replicated but being replicated on a much vaster scale," Flavin says.
Consumption
has risen sixfold since 1960, the report says, citing World Bank
statistics. Even taking the rising global population into account, this
amounts to a tripling of consumption expenditures per person over this
time. This has led to similar increases in the amount of resources used
– a sixfold increase in metals extracted from the earth, eightfold in
oil consumption and 14-fold in natural gas consumption.
"In
total, 60 billion tons of resources are now extracted annually – about
50 percent more than just 30 years ago," the report says.
Escalating
resource consumption has also led to unsustainable systems of
distributing and producing those resources. In the field of
agriculture, for instance, every one dollar spent on a typical U.S.
food item yields only about seven cents for the farmer, while 73 cents
goes to distribution, says the report's chapter on shifting to a more
sustainable agriculture system.
It points to this as one outcome
of increasingly unsustainable consumption habits. These habits have
formed only recently – the same dollar yielded 40 cents for the farmer
in 1900 – but they have now become ingrained, it says.
This
consumption is based on more than individual choices. As co-author
Michael Maniates says, "We're not stupid, we're not ignorant, we don't
even have bad values."
Rather, we are acting under the heavy
influence of cultural conventions that influence our behaviour by
making things like fast food, air conditioning and suburban living feel
increasingly "natural" and more difficult to imagine living without, he
says.
To prevent future environmental damage, "policy alone will
not be enough. A dramatic shift in the very design of human societies
will be essential," says the report.
In terms of climate change,
for instance, the authors say that even if countries reach their "most
ambitious" emissions-reducing proposals, temperatures would still go up
by 3.5 degrees Celsius by 2100.
Flavin admits that cultural
shift is "arguably one of the most difficult" topics to tackle, but, as
project director Erik Assadourian says, "This shift is not only
possible, it is already beginning to happen."
Most of the
report, in fact, discusses action that has been and can be taken to
shift the cultural paradigm, rather than the damage the current
paradigm has done.
The 244-page report cites a wide variety of
examples such as the enshrining of the rights of nature into Ecuador's
constitution and schools pushing children to think more sustainably by
giving them healthy, locally-grown lunches and encouraging them to walk
or bike to class.
Everything from childbearing to burial
traditions can be done in a more sustainable way, it says, and should
be. In his foreword, Nobel Peace Prize Laureate Muhammad Yunus points
to his experience developing the concept of microcredit and overturning
the cultural conception that poor people were not creditworthy as
evidence that such deep-rooted conceptions can, in fact, be changed.
"Now
I know that cultural assumptions, even well-established ones, can be
overturned," he says, "The book goes well beyond standard prescriptions
for clean technologies and enlightened policies. It advocates
rethinking the foundations of modern consumerism."
The report
also points to the roles different societal institutions can play in
spurring cultural shifts. Among these, religion, government, the media,
businesses and education all have key roles to play. Taken separately,
their efforts might seem small, admits Assadourian, but taken together
they can effect real change.
"Keep in mind that consumerism had
its beginning only two centuries ago and really accelerated in the last
50 years... With deliberate effort we can replace consumerism with
sustainability just as quickly as we traded home-cooked meals for Happy
Meals and neighbourhood parks for shopping malls," he says, alluding to
the tenuousness of what appear to be deep and solid cultural roots.
"Eventually
consumerism will buckle under its own impossibility," predicts
Assadourian. We can either act proactively to replace it with a more
sustainable cultural model or wait for something else to fill the void,
he says.
"Culture, after all, is for making it easy for people
to unleash their potential, not for standing there as a wall to stop
them from moving forward. Culture that does not let people grow is a
dead culture," concludes Yunus.
- Posted in



59 Comments so far
Show AllIt isn't a wall that stops western culture from moving forward.
It's plasma screens, beenie babies, pet rocks, silly string, hummers, hot tubs, barbie and ken, .......
And an educational system that doesn't develope critical thinking. A religious system that doesn't create morality. A justice system that is unjust. An economic system that deprives people of basic needs. Health care system that's based on profits for corporations not health. Oh and by the way the Plan for the New American Century sets as a goal getting rid of about 5 billion people. Care to guess which ones those are going to be?
Thanks for adding to list. The educational system is worse than you mention. It teaches blind obedience, american exceptionalism, and flat out lies. Reading and writing are secondary. The prominent religious system mirrors it with blind obedience, theological exceptionalism, and flat out lies. The economic system turns all the good citizens into competitors. Health care is really parts repair and pill popping, prevention isn't part of the system.
I shouldn't complain because I'm finally part of a group,
one that is 5 billion strong.
>>Michael Maniates says, "We're not stupid, we're not ignorant, we don't even have bad values."<<
But Americans ARE stupid, ARE ignorant, and DO have bad values. That is entirely the problem. And it appears this cultural disease is spreading to India and China as well.
Gary
I disagree.
Americans responded to consumerist huckstering in a similar way as the people of India and China are responding to it now. This is perfectly human. Advertising and the emptiness of industrial society are pretty well universal - you don't have to be "stupid" to get suckered into it.
The cure is lifestyle change and education - not higher IQs.
The tenacious of the American public when faced with the changes that are currently necessary makes it look like it is "stupid." But the "bad values" have been burned into the consumer mind by non-stop propaganda, and these bad values have been compounded by the emptiness of the consumer lifestyle.
The author suggests that this can be changed, and the current paralysis of individual Americans/Consumers has nothing to do with being less intelligent than some other "ideal" human form. It has more to do with the power of corporations who promote consumption as a lifestyle, and who have the power to force us to live according to their designs (see GM tearing up the streetcars and forcing governments to build highways/suburbia).
Thank you author Matthew Burger for hitting the nail on the head. yes, who says a teenager in Los angles can consume 40% more than her counter part in Bangladesh. Capitalism (Madison Avenue)promises that you will be a new man or woman and attract the opposite sex, feel good, if you would just buy this car, this perfume, this new improved soap or a better this unique erection pill or this 4 dooor garage home in the gated community.But the result is the same when you wake up the next day as you will be facing the same you.
yes of course and the way to this Niravana, has produced the "good life." People live longer, the automobile has meant freedom to travel, techonology has eased people way of life. But at what Cost! This model of consumption based on the lie of GDP Growth as a measure of economy intead of PQLI (Physical quality of Life Index) is on its way to producing echo-sucide of the planet---as millions in Asia and other nations scramble, even as they witness its unviablity, to imitate it.
Soon the icebergs will melt, forests will be gone, the rains will be rare and then stop, and the last Rufous-tailed jacamar will have no place to land... Wherre is POGO?
The greatest pork on the planet: the current SOW (State Of the World)! Time to stop its globalized corporate lipstick-up of We, the People.
and we are sucking the hind teet
"...people find meaning and contentment in what they consume."
This is arrant nonsense. Most thinking adults realize at some point in their maturation that inner satisfaction, inner peace, meaning don't come from stuff you can buy at a store. The pleasure one gets from stuff is fleeting and doesn't go deep enough to truly resonate.
This dissonance is at the core of what is faulty with American society and its value system. Even those who aren't reflective enough to put these doubts into words feel a sense of unease when they arrive home with the latest widget, unwrap it and wonder why they still feel unsatisfied. We call it buyer's remorse but the truth is uglier, isn't it?
I saw a bumper sticker recently that said...the best things in life aren't things...
You may say that's trite...but it's true.
General Commentator- YES I agree "the best things in life aren't things..."
But many of the best things in life are creating good times with just a few things,
Whether it be Music, ball games, cooking or playing house with a few lovely dolls.
But because the real jobs have moved to China, India, Indonesia, etc. Not so many Amerikans will have money to buy so much crap/stuff.
And that will help solve the Climate problem. Problem is it may be about 50 years to late. Can you image all those Malls reduced to just a few Malls, where the Security Guards require all that enter to have at least $100 bucks in their pocket.
That will mean that even the Security guards kids will only get to enter the mall once or twice a year.
Just a hundred years ago: the kids of most of the 1st world countries stayed home and played music, read books and/or helped harvest the foods.
That sounds like a OK life to me. Hard but good for community spirit. Hum, all except those big Daddy Bosses every few decades drag those Creative and Sport minded kids off to WAR.
And there in lays the problem. Teach all the Kids you can: Not to go to War! And just maybe most of us will survive the coming crunch.
Many will not.
The "culture of consumerism has been increasing because-DUH!-the population is increasing exponentially with no checks in place. Trace back all...and I mean ALL...of the country and the World's problems and at ground zero you will find overpopulation as the cause.
Yes, but what caused overpopulation? I know, but do you?
"culture of consumerism has been increasing because-DUH!-the population is increasing exponentially with no checks in place."
BS. The two are unrelated.
More people, more buying; more people, more consumerism. How are they not related, Einstein?
They aren't related because most of the people on the earth have very little to do with consumerism.
Right! Poor people don't buy much. Consumerism is a feature of the First world not the Third world. Consumerism is another way of saying OVER-CONSUMPTION. Poor people live on a subsistence diet, getting barely enough to survive. They don't have 2 cars, iPods, big screen TV's, or, Whole Foods. Another way of looking at consumption is via energy use. The average American uses 50 times the amount of energy of the average person from Bangladesh - one of those so-called over-populated countries. If the US population reflected the energy use of an average Bangladeshi, America would have a population of (50 x 300 million) or 15 BILLION!!! Then which country would be over-populated???
The article is also way off base saying that we need to change our consumer culture. That culture is a result of our ECONOMIC SYSTEM: CAPITALISM! You change the system; you change the culture. Matthew Berger has got the cart-before-the-horse.
It's because by consuming most of the world's oil, we are living in gluttony when disrupts all the signals in each bioregion that we are overpopulating and overconsuming resources. Blind to our overpopulation and overconsumption, we continue to consume more and thus take more resources from the less developed places.
The more disrupted the signals of overconsumption and overpopulation become, the more our population and consumption continue to grow, the more we suck the resources from less developed countries and regions, and the more desperate people in those countries become to have help surviving, which results in them having more kids, and the vicious circle continues.
There is, btw, no such thing as a carbon-neutral person or building, any more than there is such thing as a carbon-neutral deer or wolf. So, no it is not possible at this stage of overgrowth that we can decrease our total consumption at the same time we exponentially increase our total population.
Which populations, in your view, are overpopulated? The stresses being put upon nature, are happening because of consumption patterns established in rich countries, in particular, the US. The US is not generally thought of as overpopulated, but in terms of consumption, Americans are far more responsible for bringing us to the breach nature's limits than any other country. So, maybe we can agree that there are too many Americans. If not, I have to conclude that you are another Malthusian fundamentalist impervious to reason.
Read my earlier comment. Stop thinking in terms of today, and think in terms of decades and centuries. We stop our overconsumption now, if possible, and keep them from developing it somehow. Malthus was absolutely correct, but he did not take into account the differential destruction currently in evidence in developed vs developing countries. But globally it is all the same. Stop thinking countries and start thinking planet. Crossing an ocean under sail is a VERY different thing than crossing it in a 747. But it is the latter which has defined our current dilemma. Population IS a major problem, consumption IS a major problem, and greed IS a major problem. But even if the latter two are brought under control, the first will kill us off if left unchecked. Zero Population Growth is the major key.
Didn't you read the article? The article was about over-consumption not over-population. In case you didn't here's a snippet:
"The average U.S. citizens, for instance, consumes more each day, in terms of mass, than they weigh. If everyone lived like this, the Earth could only sustain 1.4 billion people."
The "core problem" is only a population problem if everyone in the world has consumption patterns like we do in the US - which is a direct result of our capitalist economic system. Most of the world is poor and will never consume like we do. They will never be able to afford it. The problems of global warming, and the attendant problems are caused by consumption patterns in the first world, first and formost the US. Over-population is a problem in the Third world. Certainly, we should not promote a development pattern for Third world countries that mirrors our own. But, of course that is inherently unfair. It is we in the First world that need to consume less. Over-population is strongly related to poverty, if we move away from capitalism, which concentrates wealth, to one where wealth is distributed more equally, the population problem will fade away in a few generations.
RE: stop thinking in terms of today
Oh, I'm way ahead you.Can you imagine a world that wasn't dog-eat-dog, where there was no poverty, hunger, war? I can, and I intend on working to make it a reality. And it is a reality I will likely never see in my lifetime. How's that for NOT "thinking in terms of today."
Incidentally, Malthus was writing about overpopulation in 19th century Europe. Malthus' prediction for the development of an overpopulated Europe was very wrong. Malthus was quite a long ways from being "absolutely correct."
Of course 'Over Population' is a big problem. But the biggest problem is still "Fat Old Rich Men sending Kids off to WAR"
Even if a world Napoleon came along and decreed an end to consumerism by threat of death-via-meatgrinder, there'd still be no stopping it (so there's absolutely no reason to believe a can't-get-anything-substantial-done democracy has the slightest chance!)
Modern man is proving himself to be no smarter than bacteria in a dish. The party won't slow (that is, most of the brains won't jettison all the shite) until the bottles (fossil fuels) run dry. Only after that time will we really begin to see just how bad the hangover's going to be.
And it's not just the Americans: We have every reason to believe the Chinese and the Indians will out-Americanize the Americans in half the time, or collapse the world-ecosystem trying. The cultures in those countries are every bit as disposable to young super-fools as the ghost of a culture that is left of America was. Consumables and canned-delights come a callin' and everything that came before, all the knowledge and wisdom and craft, is ready for the landfill.
How strange that we might end up with a world of billions of incredibly educated human beings who can't even feed themselves.
Consumerism, population, war...they ARE all related of course. We have to send kids to war to secure resources that we use to make products that we want to consume and that consuming provides us jobs. Theses resources which we get from wars (or from just taking them, and paying the people who live there pennies a day) also allow us to spend money on medical research and medicine, on growing food in the desert or shipping it around the world, so that more people live and they live longer, so the population grows and grows. As we have more children we need more jobs so we must increase the amount of what we consume/produce and in doing so we need to secure even more resouces to make the things we consume. Its a vicious cycle, indeed.
Here's the deal:
1. Too many people- we need to only have one child per couple until we reach about 500M- 1B.
2. Totally remake the financial system and UNDO the idea that the economy can and should grow...this is patently impossible and trying to make it grow is killing the planet. The banking industry is corrupt and creating monetary value out of the air by creating more debt is corrupt as well.
3. Those of us in wealthy countries MUST simplify and substantially and dramatically reduce our consumption of energy (which comes to us also in the form of goods and services). Like,by 80%.
Peak oil is going to make all these changes for us if we don't do it ourselves...but in a way that is unimaginably terrible. As for the liklihood of people actually making these changes by choice? I give it a 50/50 chance of happening before its too late. And that's optimistic.
When America was an indigeneous country of about 50 million people, before the white man exploited the Native Americans,the best things in life were free. For instance: clean water, pollution free air, no T.V., little stress, good religion, neighbors taking care of each other, no government, no bills, no money, free and healthy food, ect.
Paul,
I know what you are saying; Early Peoples lived an Earth based lifestyle and very importantly had Nature based religion, but I would like to offer a small clarification. There were forms of governments.
Case in point; the Iroquois Confederation. Hiawatha generally gets credit as the founder. Thomas Paine, Ben Franklin and others made special trips to confer with the Iroquois when contemplating the construction of the constitution. The rights of individual freedom was copied from Native Culture. The five arrows clutched by the Eagle on u.s. money represents the five original tribes in the confederation to illustrate the "united we stand" principal. The word caucus is an Algonquin word. A caucus was the meeting of the sachems (diplomatic chiefs/senators) to hash over tribal affairs.
If americans wish to learn how to live a sustainable lifestyle in the future, all they have to do is look into the past.
Peace for all
Buck
Growth is the economic mantra, which includes consumer growth.
Legal Tender is a legal contrivance, and when issued in the form of debt is nothing more than a pyramid/ponzi scheme. The quantification of debt wrongfully applies the algebraic concept of exponential growth - compounding interest - upon money. The distinction between usury and interest is an arbitrary legal determination with no basis in mathematics. Nothing can grow forever at an ever-increasing rate. As time moves on, the emphasis of ever-increasing growth becomes omnipresent, is quantified and institutionalized in the societal structure, encouraging over consumption, over development, and excessive expectations, pushing economic stress to its upper limit of expansion, eventually inciting conflict and spawning War to insure growth.
Have you grown today?
http://theformofmoney.blogharbor.com/blog/_archives/2005/9/18/1236759.html
Lived like the Tribes used to live upon the earth & we wouldn't even be having this conversation. Duh.
Hey, ShadowDancer!
perhaps you're alluding to what I'm noticing...perhaps not...I will let you clarify...
not a single sentence in this article, nor a single response to the article, thus far, with the possible exception of yours, addresses the core issue:
the private claiming of public land, the holding hostage of that land, and the reselling of it for private gain...
private property is killing this planet...that is what must end...one must be able to incarnate and sustain oneself without owing someone else money for the right to do so...
Global Start Date: September 22, 2012...all of the world's citizens rejecting the modern world, along with all of humanity's systemic contrivances...the big off switch...acoustic, agrarian, local living...cessation of industry, chemical activity and energy use...
dubet,
While not claiming to speak for ShadowDancer, it appears that he was referring the sustainability of the Early People's lifestyles. I'm in total agreement with you that everyone has a right to be and a right to be somewhere.
But life wasn't as rosy in the olden days as you may think. Certainly, there weren't deeds and land titles, but competition was stiff for use of the land.
Case in point; the Sioux. The Sioux were woodland people in the north-east. They got chased out and moved south to North Carolina to become corn and tobacco farmers. They got run out of there and moved to Minnesota to harvest rice, hunt and fish. There, under pressure again, they were threatened with extinction and moved to the plains. It was on the plains that they learned to exploit the Bison. The Bison was a multi-purpose resource and the Sioux thrived and their numbers grew. As the population expanded, so did their territory by chasing other tribes off the plains.
But to get back to my original point; they only harvested as many Bison as where needed and could have done so indefinitely.
Hey, Buck!
thank you for your response...I hope I wasn't portraying historical life as perfect, I'm simply trying to portray it as much less impactful on the planet, which I think is also what you're saying...
I'm aware that sacrificing industry and energy use would lead to a great deal of unpleasantness, my only suggestion is that the unpleasantness will be greater otherwise...
even as I argue these things with myself, I have to wonder if the industrial and chemical devastation we have already unleashed (unleash - as in, no longer really in control of the wild thing) is not too much for the future to overcome...
certainly, I am not unaware of power structures and weaponry, and that these things will be used to maintain the status quo, no matter what choices toward change are attempted...
I appreciate that many people believe another way can be found...I tend to the extreme that, as long as land is held in private hands and homelessness is a legal condition, as long as industry and molecular alteration and energy use continue, as long as the affairs of humanity outweigh the affairs of the natural world, the arc of the battle between human industry and our environmental lifespan will continue to head downward, accelerating all the way, and taking every living thing with it...
I am hoping for a nonviolent revolution in the way we view land and resources, and for us all to join together in such on a given day, which I pulled out of my ass to be September 22, 2012, as that gives us time to plant food and plan relocations, but is, hopefully, not so distant as to be too late...
I am always open to other people's plans, but don't have much faith in the political system, so have a hard time with 'this party, this person' thinking...I believe the whole goddamned system is horribly corrupted and broken beyond repair, and must be scuttled...
but, then, I've never been mainstream...
are we not all feeling a bit helpless and impotent in the face of impending doom? why not try taking back the wheel from those now driving us, literally, into toxicity?
peace, brother Buck!
dubet,
It is hard to tell the ramifications of the toxins already dumped. My fear (one of) is that the ground water will be spoiled as the petro toxins leach downward. The Earth is resilient and so is life. All species come and go, but too many are going at our hands.
I am one of the anomalous in that I relish a simpler life. Have spent many years in cabins off the grid and in tents. Yes, winters are hard, hot weather harder, but I love staying close to Nature. I've been to all the lower 48 and try to learn about the biota and Early Cultures. It would be hard to provide for hundreds of millions of people using the old ways. The game animals are reduced and resources already stressed.
The u.s. government isn't broken....it's rotten to the core, every branch infested. There will be no fixing it through the system and americans are too soft to revolt. My best advice is to find a place out of the way and prepare. Help may come from like minded people from other places.
Peace is the way
Buck
Excellent advice.
Thank you Buck, for that historical Sioux information. I just read that the Pine Ridge reservation in South Dakota has a huge teenage suicide problem. Life expectancy is 50 years, over half the adult population has diabetes and a drinking problem. JFK was the president that helped somewhat by providing them with access to federal money for housing loans. Of course Reagan cancelled their eligibility. So now they have run down housing and dilapitaded trailers.
I wish they could take Reagan's estate, sell it, and provide new housing at Pine Ridge. Nancy can live in a manufactured, 975 sq.' home like mine. It might do her some good.
Where is the rage against the titanic sized rich pig carbon footprints in this article? Where is the comparison with poor people carbon footprints? Where is the recommendation to REWARD people for low footprints and TAX people for large footprints? That's too obvious, I guess.
Our rich elite are nothing but trash of the worst sort. Prison is too good for them.
AGG,
I spent some time at the Pine Ridge this summer. It is the most economically depressed place in this country. The park isn't called the Badlands for nothing. The land offers little, grass barely grows. There was a better hay crop this year because of more rain than normal. Most of the grass fields are leased by white farmers, so the Sioux didn't profit from it. The town Pine Ridge is largest on the reservation so the concentration of poverty is greater.
The people are very nice, grateful for life, open to making friends. Drinking is a problem, drugs taboo. There is much infighting in the tribal government between those that want traditional life and the sellouts.
Their most sacred land is the Black Hills, which was stolen from them after silver was found. Today the mountains are full of vacation homes that sit empty most of the year. As a partial solution to the homeless problem emphasized by dubet, these homes should be given to those in need. How about a law that says one home is enough for anybody.
Peace always
Buck
Thanks again.
I hear there is a lot of wind up there. Perhaps they will get wind farm financing.
The best idea I have come across is The Zeitgeist Movement. Peter Joseph and Jacque Fresco are behind it. www.thezeitgeistmovement.com
The movement is based on creating a healthy enviroment for humankind by using a resource based system instead of a monetary system. This system that we are living with now is, poisoning our water, air and food supply. The money has been syphoned up to the top few in the world. It has reached it's peaked and no longer works for the betterment of humanity nor the betterment of the planet. We need a new paradigm shift of consciousness if we as humans are to survive on this planet.
There are some folks thinking beyond the innanity of the above article. The item at this link for example, http://www.energybulletin.net/51170
An excerpt:
"Only 120 years old and widely available to the middle class for just the last 60 or so years, retirement is coming to an end. It is the unique product of several converging factors. The first was energy abundance in the form of fossil fuels, which allowed an ever-decreasing number of people to work the land to produce food for those that lived in the cities. Elevating great numbers of people above the daily grind of subsistence farming was necessary before the next factor could arise....
"We now can see that the entire economy is a giant bubble that was inflated when we discovered the fossil fuel energy jackpot...."
I'm a big fan of your posts. But I think many people - even here - do not understand that all this stuff: population, the culture of affluence, and the dramatic increase in technology, were made possible solely and exclusively through the exploitation of fossil fuels. It seems to me that energy is to industrial civilization as water is to a fish. It is so taken for granted that few really consider its importance or how dependent we are upon it. But they will definitely notice once it really starts going into terminal decline. Which is more or less upon us.
Have you seen the Olduvai theory posited by Duncan? http://dieoff.org/page224.htm
Hi wildcard--Thanks for your reply. I first read the Olduvai Gorge Hypothesis about ten years ago and became Peak Oil aware at millenium's turn. It's very difficult to raise such awareness for the primary reason you note. Pardon the pun, but energy is powerful stuff, yet few understand how it makes the current political-economic paradigm possible. Despite the problems it's caused and its diminishment will create, the Fossil Fuel Age put to death the very brutal Age of Slavery and helped end Colonialism. As the Olduvai Hypothesis shows, the Hirsch Report substantiates, and the article I linked illustrates, we face various degrees of chaos based upon our level of preparedness as fossil fuel flows peak and decline. The UK's inability to meet NatGas demand during the recent cold burst is an omen. I very much agree with the article that retirement as we've come to know it will again become something only attainable by the very rich; and as that becomes reality, social unrest is likely to rise as many will feel something they're entitled to is being stolen from them, which in a sense is correct. The solution is to ensure your own source of shelter, food, clothing, and energy, which can all be made to come from a farmstead based on intensive permaculture of the sort designed by Growing Power in Milwaukee, an operation recently reported on by Yes magazine. This in turn fosters community cooperation and self-reliance independent of government and democratic in its self-governance. The template described is the cooperative Communalism that must replace combative Capitalism, and it must be driven from the bottom-->up. The whole concept provides new meaning to the term Nest Egg. May you have success in building yours.
I added this during edit: This item provides a synopsis of and link to Bloomington, Indiana's community task force report on Peak Oil, one of a growing number of cities to generate such a template, http://www.energybulletin.net/node/51175
Is this an invitation to grow up? To move from Chakra one to Chakra four?
YAWN.....
Who decided what is luxury and what is necessity?
Wake me when you find the answer.
In the meantime, spay and neuter your heterosexuals.
Three additional kids are born every second. If you can't look at that fact as the cause of consumerism, then you're just bullshitting yourself.
Go back to sleep.
The SUV with the Jesus fish on the tail = luxury
The 52" plasma TV = luxury
The 5 bedroom house for 2 people = luxury
The same house full of electronic toys = luxury
A closet full of shoes = luxury
And on and on it goes, where it stops, nobody knows.
In our nation today there are a great many issues that could be resolved through the adoption of sustainable practices in everything from energy to the food on our tables to the way we treat each other. Unfortunately, our education system is not going to address these issues, so it is up to us to educate our fellow citizens and our children on what they must do to create a sustainable world.
I have started a series of mini courses at http://www.letfreedomring.community.officelive.com under the heading Common Sense Academy in American History, American Government and the Constitution, Sustainability and Civic Participation and Critical Thinking Skills. I am hoping to encourage people to take part in not only viewing these videos, but also in participating in the discussions under America Speaks. Perhaps by learning what we can do, what our ancestors did, and how to become better citizens who can think critically, maybe, just maybe, we can create a more sustainable nation and world.
Overpopulation is the core problem. It has been caculated that the sustainable human population on earth is not more than 2 billion. Since 1950 world population jumped from 2.4 billion to the present totally unsustainable 6.8 billion. Areas with the worst population increases also have the worst environmental and social problems. China's air is unbreathable, India's wells are pumped dry. There is no longer space for other forms of life on earth; biodiversity is pushed to oblivion by the crush of more and more humans. Wherever humans go, wild creatures vanish.
Any society or belief system that supports or excuses such overpopulation is a direct threat to all life on Earth.
Advances in medical care is a contributing factor in overpopulation. Having children that grew to adulthood was a couple's security for old age(see karlof1 below). A great percentage of children didn't make it past their third year of life, so couples produced as many children as possible to counter the attrition.
The planet can support more than the two billion mentioned if meat was taken from their diet.
There is a 90% loss of energy each step up the trophic levels.
Producers use the sun for life (plants) 90% loss
Primary consumers eat plants (cows) 90% loss
Secondary consumers eat meat (humans) 90% loss
But isn't that whole idea of the planet being able to support more than the two billion based on how things are agriculturally at this very moment? What happens when all these areas that are dependent upon rapidly-vanishing glaciers can no longer cultivate food? This is going to impact millions of people.
I recognize the damage factory farming livestock does to the environment but one should consider the fact that the best fertilizer comes from livestock. Parts of this country contain massive grain and vegetable farms that have been tilled, planted, and harvested with fossil-fuel burning machinery and fertilized with petrochemicals. After that the product is processed then shipped using even more energy. I find it hard to believe that a small farmer, who owns a couple of pigs that eat table scraps and provide fertilizer for his vegetables, is doing that much harm by wanting to eat pork.
I was struck by your wording: "...if meat was taken from their diet." Taken by whom? What are you going to do, round up all the farm animals and shoot them? Turn them loose? What's the plan here? Do you really want them to become extinct?
My own opinion is that there are parts of the world that should never have been inhabited by humans in the first place. Just because you can level a forest in order to plant a cornfield doesn't mean you should do it.
Helena,
Currently there are 6 1/2 billion people and counting. A giant portion of crop land goes to feed livestock. I was simply referring to the efficiency of a vegetable based diet over one based on meat. Livestock doesn't have to be eliminated. If a person has the land to graze a cow or two, some sheep or whatever, fine. But to tie up massive tracts of land and petro energy to put meat on everyone's table every night won't sustain itself. Small scale organic gardening/farming scattered around population centers holds the key to sustainablity. Two billion is well within reason.
You couldn't be more correct about improper land use. Clear cutting forests to plant crops is insane.
Sorry for the confusion. I should have been more clear.
Peace always
Buck
RE: Overpopulation is the core problem.
NO IT IS NOT! Capitalism is the main problem. It seems to me that "overpopulation" has become this boogieman; it has become the scapegoat for those who won't look in their capitalist mirror. "It's all those overpopulated poor people, they are the problem." Yes, we are very good at blaming our victims for the crimes we have committed against them. Let's see, history of colonization, propping oppressive regimes for greater profits, the IMF, WTO, NAFTA, CAFTA, GATT, "structural adjustment", resource wars,...etc etc etc.
Creating more babies than this Earth can support is front and center of consumerism, as there is nothing more Earth-consuming than to have a baby. As long as our population continues to grow, we will not stop global warming or environmental collapse, which will cause human collapse.