Twitter
StumbleUpon
Facebook
Delicious
Digg
Newsvine
Google
Yahoo
TechnoratiConsumption: The Root Cause of Climate Change
The environmental and social crisis that threatens us requires deeper solutions than new technology alone can provide
Technology is part of the solution to climate change. But only part. Techno-fixes like some of those in the Guardian's Manchester Report simply cannot deliver the carbon cuts science demands of us without being accompanied by drastic reductions in our consumption. That means radical economic and social transformation. Merely swapping technologies fails to address the root causes of climate change.
We need to choose the solutions that are the cheapest, the swiftest, the most effective and least likely to incur dire side effects. On all counts, there's a simple answer – stop burning the stuff in the first place. Consume less.
There is a certain level of resources we need to survive, and beyond that there is a level we need in order to have lives that are comfortable and meaningful. It is far below what we presently consume. Americans consume twice as much oil as Europeans. Are they twice as happy? Are Europeans half as free?
Economic growth itself is not a measure of human well-being, it only measures things with an assessed monetary value. It values wants at the same level as needs and, while it purports to bring prosperity to the masses, its tendency to concentrate profit in fewer and fewer hands leaves billions without the necessities of a decent life.
Techno-fixation masks the incompatibility of solving climate change with unlimited economic growth. Even if energy consumption can be reduced for an activity, ongoing economic growth eats up the improvement and overall energy consumption still rises. We continue destructive consumption in the expectation that new miracle technologies will come and save us.
The hope of a future techno-fix feeds into the pass-it-forward, do-nothing-now culture typified by targets for 2050. Tough targets for 2050 are not tough at all, they are a decoy. Where are the techno-fix plans for the peak in global emissions by 2015 that the IPCC says we need?
Even within the limited sphere of technology, we have to separate the solutions from the primacy of profit. We need to choose what's the most effective, not the most lucrative. Investors will want the maximum return for their money, and so the benefits of any climate technologies will, in all likelihood, be sold as carbon credits to the polluter industries and nations. It would not be done in tandem with emissions cuts but instead of them, making it not a tool of mitigation but of exacerbation.
Climate change is not the only crisis currently facing humanity. Peak oil is likely to become a major issue within the coming decade. Competition for land and water, soil fertility depletion and collapse of fisheries are already posing increasing problems for food supply and survival in many parts of the world.
Technological solutions to climate change fail to address most of these issues. Yet even without climate change, this systemic environmental and social crisis threatens society, and requires deeper solutions than new technology alone can provide. Around a fifth of emissions come from deforestation, more than for all transport emissions combined. There is no technological fix for that. We simply need to consume less of the forest, that is to say, less meat, less agrofuel and less wood.
Our level of consumption is inequitable. Making it universal is simply impossible. The scientist Jared Diamond calculates that if the whole world were to have our level of consumption, it would be the equivalent of having 72 billion people on earth.
With ravenous economic growth still prized as the main objective of society by all political leaders the world over, that 72 billion would be just the beginning. At 3% annual growth, 25 years later it would be the equivalent of 150 billion people. A century later it would be over a trillion. Something's got to give. And indeed, it already is. It's time for us to call it a crisis and respond with the proportionate radical action that is needed.
We need profound change – not only government measures and targets but financial systems, the operation of corporations, and people's own expectations of progress and success. Building a new economic democracy based on meeting human needs equitably and sustainably is at least as big a challenge as climate change itself, but if human society is to succeed the two are inseparable.
Instead of asking how to continue to grow the economy while attempting to cut carbon, we should be asking why economic growth is seen as more important than survival.
96 Comments so far
Show AllI am also concerned that the economic press and principals continue to look toward increased buying as the eventual solution to our economic woes. What we need is a whole new economy that does not depend on "stuff" to survive. Investing in renewable energy will help create that.
But I can already see hope on the horizon. Current conditions are moving us toward a more sustainable paradigm, even as we decry the job losses - sustainable business will include shorter work weeks and more time for families. I've detailed this perspective more fully here: http://www.gogreennation.org/2009/07/house-of-cards-going-down/
Let me know what you think!
Best Regards,
Trish Riley
Author: The Complete Idiot's Guide to Greening Your Business and The Complete Idiot's Guide to Green Living
trish@gogreennation.org
Every time there is a (somewhat) organized push on environmental issues, what does our government do? Sure enough, they ratchet-up the "war on smoking", and hike the tobacco tax. The problem is that, as a distraction, this has been working remarkably well for years, distracting the public from the real issues. Think a minute. Under 20% of US adults smoke, very few of these will develop a disease as a result, and smoking restrictions are so stringent that few of us have ANY exposure to tobacco smoke. We know that the most carcinogenic type of smoke is the kind that contains oil particles -- motor vehicles, not cigarettes. It takes a room-full of smokers to produce as much smoke as turning the ignition on a single car. Yet time and again, government has effectively diverted the public's attention by putting the focus on the non-issue of tobacco. It has worked every time, for decades.
"It's time for us to call it a crisis and respond with the proportionate radical action that is needed.
We need profound change – not only government measures and targets but financial systems, the operation of corporations, and people's own expectations of progress and success. Building a new economic democracy based on meeting human needs equitably and sustainably is at least as big a challenge as climate change itself, but if human society is to succeed the two are inseparable."
CORPORATISM.
Plain and simple. There must be a GLOBAL change in the definition and terms of charter of all corporations.
As it stands now, corporations are legally REQUIRED to do everything possible, legal or quasi-legal to maximize profit, which in so many words means the end of the biosphere, humanity.
The charters must read something like: to secure and increase shareholder value, but not at the expense of the commons, the biosphere, human health, rights, or democratic principles, and their activities should be net neutral for seven generations out. These ideas have been advanced by others, but it is crucial that they receive the widest possible dissemination.
Corporate "personhood" must be revoked. It is a civilization-destoying mistake.
We need permaculture.
I dunno licketyglick, I see a lot of poor single moms out there as well. I guess I don't know a lot of wealthy women. They certainly aren't a majority. Most of the people I know that are having kids didn't plan on having them, and they aren't well-to-do.
I think one reason overpopulation offends some people is because they see it as misanthropic and at times racist too since the issue at times is trained on non-white populations. It is an issue that needs to be addressed though. I certainly don't shy away from it and have no children.
So what do we do? Sterilize everyone? Tax the shit out of people that have more than one kid?
That's why people talk about poverty reduction, reproductive rights, and sex ed when it comes to curb birth rates. These well-off women aren't enough of the population to contribute that greatly to overpopulation.
"Where threats to the integrity of the biosphere as we know it are concerned, it is well to remember that it is not the areas of the world that have the highest rate of population growth but the areas of the world that have the highest accumulation of capital, and where economic and ecological waste has become a way of life, that constitute the greatest danger."
"Malthus represents the class morality (and the race and gender morality) of the capitalist system and in this sense Malthusianism is a historic necessity of capitalism."
http://www.monthlyreview.org/1298jbf.htm
And here I thought I had the oldest car in the US! Mine is a 92 Toyota s/w and I adore it. The folks at the dealership know my name and year and model of my car even tho I rarely walk in there!
I've been trying to grow veggies, but this drought has taken it's toll on them this year here in Texas, and my fig tree has only several figs; I have to fight the birds for my share! Most people's water bills have doubled or tripled, while on the east coast they have unseasonal rain and in Chicago, unseasonal cold--but it's not from global warming, doncha Know!!!!! The world is actually cooling down! Yes, and pigs fly!
So long, it's been good ta know ya.....
Well that too licketyglick. And we can address that by addressing education, poverty, and women's reproductive freedom. Women that are educated, living well, and have access to family planning aren't going to have as many children.
So all the working and non-working middle class women, rich women, actresses, wives of rock stars, and those gobbling fertility drugs and sopping up sperm donations to pump out the twins and 3-8 kids are uneducated, not living well, and have no access to family planning?
Many are those who have the bucks in hand to afford to overpopulate (at the great expense of everyone else and the planet, of course!) who are totally oblivious about overpopulation. I see very educated and financially secure women I have known and meet gleefully adding to the planet's woes with their planned-for large families while supposedly living eco-oriented lifestyles and/or doing the whole cool hippie thing. Totally oblivious!
Then there are the women from Somolia, Mexico and other countries who arrive in the US, and knowing they will obtain government support, start pumping out the kids, often without having any husband or boyfriend to support them. Today immigrants to the US statistically have as many of or more kids than their counterparts in their home countries. Don't tell me they don't have access to family planning and are not living well. Uneducated, yes -- about overpopulation and about personal responsibility, but not any less uneducated about it than their more well-to-do counterparts here. I can testify to this phenomenon by observing the families living right on my block down the street and directly across from me; with all the government support they've gotten to overpopulate, with subsidized housing, job training, college tuition, and now enjoying good jobs and driving huge new trucks and still enjoying subsidized housing. Totally oblivious, but hardly any more oblivious than the social workers helping them to overpopulate and overconsume and who think it's all so wonderful.
I help found an organization in the late 90s to educate about and stop local overpopulation. You would not believe the bile flung at us and our staff from environmental and social justice groups, and the great lengths they went to keep our organization out of the main coalition supposedly focused on over all local sustainability. And our board and staff were filled with long term respected members of the environmental and civic community. Foundations went against their own policies in order to reject requests for funding, and many wealthy individual funders gave anonymously out of fear of castigation. As a founder of the group, I received a letter from one environmental group leader asking me to stop writing about local overpopulation in the daily editorial page. Even though our main fundraiser was able to raise significant amounts despite all of this opposition, he wasn't able to raise enough to get the organization fully on its own feet and do the work we were trying to accomplish, most importantly because the grantmakers simply do not ever want to support work that actually addresses the root cause of the dying of the planet. In short, most of the so-called social justice and environmental groups are adamantly opposed to addressing the overconsumption of resources by an ever-growing population, and today it is just not cool to talk about local overpopulation. You see, it's a global problem that's best addressed by eradicating poverty in other countries.
I grant that in countries like Africa and India, and in poor non-immigrant families of wealthier countries, poverty plays a role, as does the dominant male factor. But pre-colonized native cultures didn't suffer from overpopulation -- the reason being because they got direct feedback from the limited resources of their local environment if they started to grow beyond those resources' abilities to support them. And the excuse of poverty doesn't tell why so many well-to-do US women are having larger families than in previous decades. Why did the birth rate in the US drop to 1.7 children per woman by 1976? Women's lib doesn't explain all of it. It was because in conjunction with the first Earth Day of 1970, the word was out and very loudly spoken that we need to stop overpopulating. Why did that word get muzzled? You can thank the "social justice" organizations for that. This has been well-documented.
Don't forget the role also of tax breaks and, now in Europeans countries such as Germany, government encouragement and monetary support for women to have more kids. And don't forget the role of religion in its continuing to urge middle class and wealthy couples to overpopulate.
Ignorance. Sheer ignorance.
licketyglick, I didn't realize that it was politically incorrect to talk about "local overpopulation", as you call it. I haven't seen any statistics to the effect that it has now become fashionable to have larger families. But if true, it is a serious development indeed - especially if, as you say, it's the "well-to-do US women" that have started having large families - simply because the rich consume more. (Poor people having large families in today's situation would be bad as well). My general refrain while debating consumption vs. population is that you can't do anything about the people who are already here - so let's share what we have. But if there are people who actually believe it's a good idea to have large families, well, then, that's cause for concern. But, I must say, apart from your post, I haven't read anything to that effect elsewhere.
For several years now, Catholic Mexico's birth rate has been lower than the US's. Why? Because of education on TV and elsewhere about family planning and birth control.
Look at the role models in the US: Celebrities. Take a look at their birth rates.
You can look up US birth rate stats to see the trends by demographics.
So what do we do about it?
We need a massive global campaign to distribute free condoms (preferably bio-degradable) and bummer stickers that say, "Copulate, Don't Populate" in every written language on earth. We're talking everywhere from Greenland to Somalia, Guyana to Sri Lanka.
I don't think bumper stickers will be useful in advertising in Somalia though :-)
Not a single mention of overpopulation in the entire article.
And this guy is an environmental writer??
What ignorance!!
I keep hearing about reducing consumption, punishing consumers with high taxes, price gouging, etc.
I don't know that people have an "appetite" for oil and coal. It's just that they don't know anything else. I think there are appetites for alternatives, but there's too much money being made from fossil fuels.
What about alternative fuels? I never seem to hear or read enough discussion on that? Aren't there viable, clean, renewable energies? Is it really possible to force us all to ride bikes and walk? Will that really stop climate change or just slow it?
I am certainly no scientist, but it seems to me as if we need a combination of things. We need energy sources that are not derived from oil or coal or nucelar power, and I think we can develop these new fuels and that they can have no harmful ecological impact. However, geoengineering I feel will have to play a role as well. You mean to tell me that there's no way to make the earth cooler or purify our air and water?
I'm all for alternatives to driving. I hate driving a car. Cars are in fact dangerous, dirty, and expensive.
But I'll tell you, I would feel even less safe driving a scooter or riding a bike to work unless there were bike lanes and plenty of room. They are not respected on the road. I cringe when I see them because I fear they'll get hit.
Public transportation is great when it's frequent and reliable. Build more light rails, enough so that people can go anywhere they want to without needing to drive, bike, or walk?
How about restructuring our cities, towns, and suburbs so that everything one needs is in their own area? I don't know about you, but I wish my job were in my neighborhood, within walking distance.
I wish it were feasible for me to walk to work right now. Well it is, but it'd take me a few hours to get home. lol.
Hi Mooondoggy!
At Fort Detrick Maryland, scientists/viroligists have formed a team to create an AIDS like virus, it worked so well once, but with two critical differences, it will have a vaccine the .01% inculcate themselves with and it will be ultra contagious/deadly.
Engineering on this virus has been completed several times.
It is a matter of which one and when.
Maybe we could be strong and overcome the Ft., take the facilities that engineer deadly viruses and destroy them.
We shall overcome. I'm gonna bong on that note.
God is sure pissed, but not at us, at the Barbarians dubet nailed.
I hope in his infine wisdom he vaporizes them. Save us a lot of trouble.
I'll bong to that!
To misquote the world's all-time favorite hippie, "those with a strong immune system shall inherit the earth (or what's left of it)".
Yo, bro, if you have time to kill, or perhaps it's too hot outside, come on in and watch a 10 part video called: The World According to Monsanto.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c_OJcPKEYDE
It'll blow your freakin' mind.
Here is a David Suzuki Quote:
"Economists believe the economy can grow forever. Not only do they believe it can grow forever, which it cannot, they believe it must grow forever. Since World War II they have equated economic growth with progress. Nobody wants to stop progress but, if economic growth is what we define as progress, who is ever going to ask what an economy is for? With all this growth are we happier? How much is enough? We do not ask those questions. We have fallen into the trap of believing that economic growth forever is possible and necessary.
I am going to show you why this is absolutely suicidal. Anything growing steadily over time is called exponential growth and whatever is growing exponentially has a predictable doubling time, whether it is the amount of garbage you make, the number of taxis on the road, the amount of water you use, or the human population. So, if the population is growing at 1% a year it will double in 70 years; 2% a year it will double in 35 years; 3% - 23 years; 4% in 17.5 years. Anything growing exponentially will double predictably.
I am going to show you why it is suicidal to think we can keep growing forever. Let me give you a test tube full of food for bacteria, that represents our world. I am going to put one bacterial cell into that test tube (representing us), and it is going to divide every minute; that is exponential growth. So at time zero you have one cell; one minute you have two; two minutes you have four; three minutes you have eight; four minutes you have 16. That is exponential growth and at 60 minutes the test tube is completely full of bacteria and there is no food left, a sixty minute cycle.
When is the test tube only half full? Well the answer of course is at 59 minutes; but a minute later it is filled. So at 58 minutes it is 25% full; 57 minutes 12½ % full. At 55 minutes of the 60 minute cycle it is only 3% full. So, if at 55 minutes one of the bacteria said to its companions that they had a population problem, the other bacteria would be incredulous because 97% of the test tube would be empty and they had been around for 55 minutes. Yet they would have only 5 minutes left. So bacteria are no smarter than humans and at 59 minutes they realize they only have a minute left. So they give massive amounts of money to scientists, and in less than a minute those bacterial scientists invent three test tubes full of food. That would be like adding three more planets for our use. So it would seem that they (and we) would be saved.
What actually happens is this - at 60 minutes the first tube is full; at 61 minutes the second is full; and at 62 minutes all four are full. By quadrupling the amount of food and space, you buy two extra minutes! How do we add even a fraction of 1% more of air, water, soil or biodiversity? We cannot. The biosphere is fixed and finite and every biologist I have talked to agrees with me, we are past the 59th minute. So all those leaders saying that we have to keep the economy growing are saying we have to accelerate down what is a suicidal path".
Sad but true.
Thanks for the support above: I am not a reactionary, for there is not one socio-political-economic problem that is going to be ameliorated by simply adding more people to the biosphere. I knew I would get opposition, but thanks for the support from the others who gave it.
Universal peace, freedom, or economic justice will never be attained by an increasing number of people vying for a shrinking quantity of resources. Furthermore, the countries that are the world's biggest polluters are those countries with the largest populations. Don't take my word for it: look it up.
"Furthermore, the countries that are the world's biggest polluters are those countries with the largest populations."
That's not true at all. Name one country that guzzles more natural resources than the USA. China and India may be increasing their consumption but I seriously doubt they're anywhere close to that of the USA overall or per person on average wise.
I found this: http://worldpopulationbalance.org/population_energy
and this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_electricity_consumption
I agree with you. Consumption is more the problem than population. Besides, in better economic conditions, birth rates drop, infant survival increases, life expectancies increase, etc.
Well the U.S. does also have one of the largest populations too. I have read that China has overtaken us in total carbon emissions, but obviously they are still far below us in per capita terms.
The consumption created by mendacity will feed us our own waste until we die.
Who ever would have thought that shit was not good food? After all a few people made billions. How could a good thing be bad?
You say you are coming to get me? I got a shit capsule between my teeth. Just try and hurt me.
There's lots of talk about overpopulation but even if the population were smaller, we'd still be in this pickled. As pointed out by a wise observer, the places on this planet with higher population densities than the USA guzzle far less so why blame the people? I already confessed in another thread yesterday that I fell for the idea of driving 45 miles to work just because living in a condo in the outer suburbs was significantly cheaper than renting an apartment in the inner cities but due various factors coming up, I'm seriously considering moving back to the city and cutting down my driving big time. Besides cutting down on fuel consumption, I think I might save myself from potential health problems associated with driving and avoid the dangers of driving in congestion hell altogether.
Yes, I think that is a smart move, Jen, and I strongly encourage it! If you can get away with it, I would suggest not even owning a car. They cost a bloody fortune! Instead, with the money you save, buy a quality touring bike and good bike gear.
If you need to shower before work, do so at a nearby Y, or fitness club. Join or volunteer some time at a local community garden. Support farmers markets and buy only organically grown foods (I'm just full of ideas and suggestions, ain't I?).
And don't forget your topsy turvey! :)
I'm not sure about getting rid of the car totally since I do drive across the state once in a while to visit my family or relatives. Biking? I don't know how well that would go for going to work. I wouldn't want to be sweating and having to change. I would also need to find dedicated biking paths for safety from obnoxious drivers on the road. I'd be looking to finding an apartment near a metro station but not shoddy or too costly of course. Thanks for reminding me of the rest of the tips. Love those ideas. :)
Good luck. I found the use of bus and metro much easier, since I never bothered learning how to drive. Public transit is natural to me.
Meaningless electricity production, or?
Yes,it seems to be essential to take a close look on our habitual way of consuming energy.
Take a look on the "state of art in Denmark"; link
http://ralph-sylvestersen.blogspot.com/2009/02/meaningless-electricity-production-or.html
Oops, double post.
I'm with Cassius 23 in bringing up the subject of population control. Human impact upon the Earth results from two factors: the population and the individual impact of each person on the environment. You cannot just talk about consumption without bringing up birth control. Certainly it is true that the impact of one American is far greater than one South African, but there is one difference: the South African will begin having children sooner than the American--generation times can be very short. Within a period of, say, fifty years the impacts in South Africa may become bigger than those in America because of increasing population. This is not to justify patterns of overconsumption that have developed in America, but to encourage efforts to diminish population growth as well as stop buying so much stuff. You have to do both.
What a completely stupid article this is. I consume a lot and things haven't been getting hotter. I eat big like Garfield and I drive a Hummer and there ain't no climate change. Who is this stupid author to tell us what to consume anyway? The problem is BIG GOVERNMENT. Consumers are the driving force behind the economy. Without consumers, no economy. Now if you'll excuse me, I gotta get ready to enjoy my favorite dinner buffet !
Carbon credits will be subject to all the typical manipulations of capital. They will be robbed and forged. Having carbon credits will allow one to coerce and negotiate for more carbon credits. A healthy carbon economy - per a figuring that may become common - will thereby involve a growth in available carbon credits.
The problem of growth is endemic to market decisions of capitalist structures under narrow private ownership.
That has to change.
It is hard to avoid consuming up to the level of one's disposable income... hence Voluntary Poverty combined with Homesteading is a effective strategy for those who would prefer to leave a healthy planet to our offspring...and it's a more fulfilling and enjoyable life-style than the rat-race...and a great environment for raising kids in too. Jefferson was right about self-sufficient farming: it engenders independent thinking and a sense-of-responsibility. (Under contemporary conditions it can be combined with some wage work to no great detriment.)
It also can help one weather an economic downturn. See the classic text HOW TO LIVE THE GOOD LIFE by Scott and Helen Nearing.
Production for use not for the market inevitably makes for thoughtful consumption. When your own sweat produces your food and your fuel and your building materials, you pay attention to how they are used.
Peak oil is already a major factor...witness the turmoil of the markets when energy costs spiral up. Burning fossil fuels at the rate we have been for 100 years is now catching up to us finally. While it led to an incredible flowering of human civilization in that short time, providing ease, entertainment and comfort, it also is probably going to cause the planet's climate to alter enough to cause indescribable human and nonhuman suffering.
Additionally, we have built a whole paradigm of the "optimum" lifestyle based on the assumption of continued limitless supplies of easy (cheap) oil- and making the mental adjustment to the reality of a low-oil future is beyond the capacity of most people. Oil has provided us nearly everything around us- try to look around where you are and locate ONE item that wasn't made possible by the use of oil. The fantasy that "alternatives" will fill more than a fraction of the gap left as oil supplies get harder to extract is keeping a lot of people from facing the hard truth about our future.
It's going to look very different, and the sooner we accept this and start to prepare the better of we and our children will be. But politicians and most of the populace are still heading in the direction of the cliff, throwing money at false hopes.
I want to comment on the term, "flowering of human civilization." This is a delusion. The "flowering" for a few was (and remains) inextricably dependent upon massive exploitation of the vast majority of other human beings on the Planet who were (are) summarily considered "savage" or "uncivilized", and by treating the earth as a commodity to be profited from. With great effort, the egregious and incomprehensible consequences have been kept from our view and consciousness through massive lies, secrecy, and propaganda. Our schools and universities, our churches, and our governments, have all been intrinsically part of it. As a species, most of us agreed to be obedient in order to adapt to "the realities," but in the process we have given up our archetypal autonomy in small, locally reliant groups. The "flowering" was facilitated by the ideologies of racism and classism, and continued under incredible pathological denial. The chickens are in the process of coming home to roost. Perhaps explosion of a deep eco-consciousness can break our 20 generation-long Cartesian Gridlock thinking. A good question to ask ourselves: Who are the real savages? And, who is the real me?
the problem is that we require money to live...the planet has been divided up, and without money, you don't get any...you get enslaved, or jailed, or left to die...this is the fundamental that must change...
seeing the planet as a wonder and our salvation, rather than our own private chemistry experiment, restaurant and toilet, would go a long way...
For 500 years the world has been dominated by Eurocentric "exceptionalism" justifying the plunder of the resources and labor of the remaining 80%. The US (and all of us real people who have been conditioned by its social myth of exceptionalism) is a subset of this colonialism/imperialism. After 25 generations, the western way of life, based on the theft at gunpoint of the "Third World," in effect, a series of genocides conducted with virtual total impunity, is addicted to consumerism and extraordinarily wasteful and lethally destructive habits. The antidote is our choosing to radically simplify our lives (including you and me) while consciously obstructing the continuation of the political-economic system – refusing cooperation and obedience as we create locally reliant communities everywhere. This was Gandhi's two-prong approach: resist and non-cooperate with imperial policies while constructing the self-reliant alternative from below, everywhere.
"This was Gandhi's two-prong approach: resist and non-cooperate with imperial policies while constructing the self-reliant alternative from below, everywhere."
I wouldn't put too much faith in Ghandi's strategy. It may have been spiritually satisfying, but had it been taken to its logical conclusion, it would have ended in a political and social disaster. If India had followed his lead, it would have led to massive starvation and displacement.
As for his 'non-violence' he was somewhat hypocritical. He was perfectly willing to allow others' violence to further his own ends without criticism. He did, after all, hope that the Japanese would drive the British out of South-East Asia by force.
His staunch and cultish attachment to Hinduism - and his populist idea of everybody spinning their own thread, making their own clothes, growing their own food, etc. (similar in some ways to Jefferson's nation of 'yeoman farmers') trumped any hope of an 'Indian national identity' and helped to precipitate a violent Muslim reaction that may not have happened otherwise.
As for driving the Brits out - after the Amritsar massacre they saw the violence that would be necessary to hold onto India and were already looking for a face-saving way out. Ghandi was pushing on an already opened door.
Tirebiter, I don't think Gandhi's (not 'Ghandi') ideas can be cast off without looking at them objectively. First of all, those who have read about Gandhi, as well as his own writings, know that he was by no means perfect, nor did he claim he was. In fact, he views his life as one big experiment (he called his autobiography "The Story of My Experiments with Truth") and his personality as well as views on life underwent a great deal of evolution - mostly as a result of what he encountered in life. For example, he wasn't exactly opposed to the British Empire at first - he just wanted equal rights for all within the empire. It's when he saw the exploitation of people and the lost livelihoods of traditional craftsmen and the role of the empire in it, he changed his views, gradually. In fact, there were lots of others in his time who were far more radical and wanted the British out of India at the earliest.
Spirituality was an aspect of Gandhi's life - but he was also a leader, as shown by the fact that literally tens of millions of people - of all faiths - were ready to listen to him. At a time of complex events in the world and competing pulls and pressures within India/Pakistan, he probably viewed spirituality as a way to ground himself - because, after all, much depended on what he said, wrote and did. I don't think spirituality, if "taken to its logical conclusion", as you put it, can weaken any nation. You still do what you have to do - but less out of ego, fear and greed, and more out of a different kind of understanding of reality.
You are completely wrong about Gandhi's "hope that the Japanese would drive the British out of South-East Asia by force". In fact, he had given his tacit support for Britain, although he, like most leaders in India/Pakistan of the time, did not approve of the fact that Britain declared war on behalf of India. There was a functioning rebel army called INA (Indian National Army) led by a man called Subhas Chandra Bose. Bose, after escaping from prison, actually sought help from the Nazis and the Japanese, as he viewed the enemies of his enemy, viz., the British, as potential allies. Despite Bose being a prominent figure in India with lots of admirers and followers, Gandhi distanced himself from Bose because he disapproved of his tactics, and perhaps also worried about post-independent India under a "nationalistic" leadership. My point is that it is completely false to say that Gandhi gave even indirect support to the Japanese or hoped for a Japanese victory - even though there were lots of other Indians who saw the Japanese as a potential ally at that time.
You are also wrong about "his staunch and cultish attachment to Hinduism". It's true that Gandhi was a devout Hindu - but his idea of Hinduism was more spiritual - which allowed him to easily find common ground with other religions. In fact, it was his insistence on religious tolerance so as to avoid a split of India/Pakistan - which was seen as going too far by some Hindu fanatics - that ultimately cost his life, when he was shot dead by a Hindu fanatic.
As for spinning thread, it was a powerful symbol of opposing the British empire. Textiles produced in the industrial mills of Britain were driving traditional weavers out of business. After all, weaving was fairly well developed in India (also China), but there were no power looms and industrial production such as those in Britain. His followers took to spinning as a way of protest and partly as a spiritual exercise as suggested by Gandhi. There is simply no connection between spinning and growing one's own food and "a violent Muslim reaction".
And "the Amritsar massacre" that you mention took place in 1919. The British did not leave India a full 28 years later - in 1947. Yes, holding on to the empire was costly. But they also benefited enormously from the empire. Churchill was in no mood to let go of any colonies, let alone India (contrary to the British assurance to Indian leaders during WW-II), even though he thought of the Indians as a "beastly people with a beastly religion".
brianw's comment was about resistance, non-cooperation and self-reliance. If adapted suitably to today's situation, even including spirituality, I don't see why they cannot be as effective today as they were during Gandhi's time.
You make some fair points but nothing to dissuade me from assessing Ghandi’s political tactics and vision for India as a overall failure. And it was a political end, not a spiritual end, that he was ultimately pursuing.
I won’t disagree that he was an admirable and spiritual human being, but given the political legacy he left - a nascent India fractured into pieces over religious differences that his ‘devout’ Hinduism exacerbated – notwithstanding the ‘common ground’ he may have personally had with other religions – I can only conclude that his strategy was ultimately a failure. What India needed to recover from the cruelties and exploitation of the Raj was a modern and pragmatic leader, what they got in Ghandi was a guru. The glow around Ghandi is enhanced because he was assassinated. The same glow appears around the Kennedy brothers, Lincoln, and Rabin – all killed by fanatics or the unstable. It is a glow that hides an honest assessment of their actual contribution to history.
And it wasn’t his idea of spinning and agricultural self-reliance that led to a violent Muslim reaction, but his apparent devout Hinduism. (I apologize for the confusion I may have caused by combining two distinct thoughts into one sentence. I should have treated them separately.) They felt they couldn’t trust him to treat them as equals or address their needs – whatever he vowed to do. Not surprisingly, most people don't trust politicians. And the ‘tens of millions’ of individuals willing to listen to him is a minority in a nation of hundreds of millions.
As for it taking 28 years after Amritsar for the Brits to leave – any nation with an adversarial domestic political system is far slower to move than an authoritarian one. A fractious parliament, obdurate prime ministers, and the reluctance to give up the last imperial gasp of a failing empire all made it hard for the Brits to give up what they believed they owned. The cold war ended twenty years ago and many leaders in the US would like the ‘Cuban situation’ – tightly tied to cold war animosities - solved in a face-saving way. But it still hasn’t happened – for some of the same reasons the Brits couldn’t easily disentangle themselves from India.
While personally admirable, I can't think of modern 'conflict' where tactics of passive resistance, non-cooperation and self-reliance alone have been effective in throwing off a violent and exploitive imperial occupation. Sporadic Palestinian attempts at these tactics, for example, were and are so far a failure. Maybe you could provide me an example of where such tactics actually worked in the modern world.
Looks like you insist on spelling his name as "Ghandi" and not as "Gandhi", I see... :)
It is after all only an English approximation of his actual name (in Sanskrit?) and translational spellings can often be problematic. But if it offends you please excuse an old man's episodic dyslexia. I often spell 'because' as 'becuase' and 'Israel' as 'Isreal' for the same reason.
It's a simple formula:
(Too many weak and empty people) + (an ideological system based on unending consumption) where nothing but profit matters * (political shills * lies + (corrupt social and political institutions)) * (rampant expolitation * military expenditures) - (human values + solidarity) / (mean time to failure) = end of life as we know it.
What does poverty look like?
There is moral and ethical poverty in the midst of fabulous material wealth. There is wealth in the midst of traditional cultures defining their wellbeing in sustainable unity with nature. The former regards the latter as an unviable option because it has no concept of unity/continuity with nature, while the latter picks and chooses which aspects of the former fit into a life defined in unity with nature.
Conservatives demonized Malthusians just as they demonized liberals, socialists, scientists and atheists and now we are afraid to call ourselves such brave and wondrous things.
ezeflyer, as pjd412 pointed out, I too was surprised when you said conservatives "demonized Malthusians". You might be interested to read what Marx and Engels had to say about Malthus. I have seen conspiracy theorists (such as Alex Jones) lump Malthus, the eugenicists that followed, AND nature conservancy movements and even those who warn about climate change all together - which made no sense to me. Maybe that's a conservative ploy to confuse people? Malthus might have got some things right - such as the finite nature of resources (which is common sense, anyway), but he has been proven to be wrong on other counts - especially his postulation on affluence vs. population. Worst of all, his "theories" were apparently used as a justification for subsequent empire building, and I wonder if that mindset has ever stopped. "If resources are finite, then they had better be under our control" - isn't that part of the imperialistic mindset?
Malthus was not perfect. He was an Anglican clergyman as well as a British scholar. That former casts doubt on his scientific qualifications as well as his political views. But his "The Principle of Population" was lauded by such scientists as Rousseau, Darwin and Wallace. Much of his writing holds true today however and discarding all of it is akin to throwing the baby out with the bathwater, playing into the hands of overpopulation deniers.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Robert_Malthus
ezeflyer, are there really any "overpopulation deniers", as you call them? I know of climate change deniers, and the nuanced variety that accepts climate change but denies human role. If you have been to developing countries, you can see that many of their governments - both at the federal and the state/local levels - have programs that try to educate and motivate people about a small family. We know that China does it aggressively, but other countries do it less aggressively. Their effectiveness could be improved - but it is a fact that many countries are already aware of overpopulation. By trying to improve the living standards and by providing education, they are in effect trying to stabilize (and hopefully reduce) their population. But many of the developing countries are also caught up in international debt, local wars and corruption - that it may look like they don't care about population size. Add to this mix, the role of religion(s) - because some of these developing countries have people that take religion a bit seriously. It's not their fault - that's how it's been. So when religious "leaders" actively discourage or preach against birth control (even preventive measures such as using condoms), what are they to do? Obviously they don't want to end up in hell - which they imagine to be a place worse than their own situation in this life.
But do we really need to invoke Malthus? That resources are finite is known. We also know more about the carbon cycle, and that there is a finite rate at which CO2 can be absorbed by the trees and the ocean (which they say is reaching its limits). I agree that the current human population is beyond the Earth's carrying capacity, and I've heard about it since I was little. But I like to challenge people to be more specific - about what exactly is to be done about overpopulation. It's not the fault of people that they were born. So, whatever reduction in population is required, it has to happen from now into the future. Except the religious nuts, I don't see anyone objecting to birth control or a small family. In the meantime, as a matter of fairness, I like to learn about and live, and possibly "convert" others towards a simpler life that leaves a smaller footprint. Reducing our ecological footprint has other potential benefits too - apart from tackling climate change, it could reduce or eliminate wars, make us healthier, and hopefully happier.
"Reducing our ecological footprint has other potential benefits too - apart from tackling climate change, it could reduce or eliminate wars, make us healthier, and hopefully happier."
All good. At least overpopulation forces us to learn how to reduce our ecological footprint. But since the planet's resources are finite, with ever rising populations our species will reach an ecological tipping point no matter how energy efficient we become. Then if we haven't learned to control our populations humanely, the conservative beasts among us will do what they do best, reduce our population size through blood and suffering like in all other species.
Actually, most criticism of Malthusianism comes from the socialists and the left.
"Our level of consumption is inequitable. Making it universal is simply impossible. The scientist Jared Diamond calculates that if the whole world were to have our level of consumption, it would be the equivalent of having 72 billion people on earth."
Good article Merrick. But don't you mean "consumerism? "Consumption" is what they used to call TB here in the US.
Jared Diamond also ties consumerism with resource depletion and shows overpopulation to be a root cause.
Another root cause would be concentrating wealth and power. Them with the gold not only makes the rules, but consume more of everything.
con⋅sump⋅tion
–noun
1. the act of consuming, as by use, decay, or destruction.
2. the amount consumed: the high consumption of gasoline.
3. Economics: the using up of goods and services having an exchangeable value.
4. Pathology:
a. Older Use. tuberculosis of the lungs.
b. progressive wasting of the body.
It's the right word.
Thanks
I have some questions for all those who insist that population is THE problem that's causing climate change:
When you talk of population control, are you thinking of those people who are already here, or future growth?
Do you think that poverty might have something to do with overpopulation? Lack of education as a result of poverty, included.
And do you think globalized trade might have something to do with poverty? It might benefit some in the poorer countries, but does it benefit the majority?
Do you think religious teachings that discourage birth control (even condoms!) might have something to do with overpopulation?
If you are talking of future population growth, what would be an ideal size for a family? One child? Two? None?
When you think of population, is there a particular ethnic group or race that comes to your mind?
Would you like the SAME family size for all countries? Or is the size limit just for the poor families? After all, in a globalized economy, we do consume stuff grown or produced in other parts of the world. Without a globalized economy, those resources could perhaps be used for the local population, not just the elite in those countries and those importing from these countries.
Have you looked at historical data on population? I haven't - but I do have anecdotal evidence that large families - like 6, 7, 8, or more children was not so uncommon even in Europe and wherever the Europeans "settled" - until perhaps the 20th century.
Do you think that colonization of North & South America, Australia (3 continents), and parts of Africa relieved some of the pressures on population density in Europe? Also, the people who were pushed out by the enclosure movement had some place to escape due to these colonizations?
Have you heard of "Ecological Footprint"? It's essentially the land area (actually includes ocean area, too - if you consume fish and other marine products) that's required to produce everything a person (or a nation) consumes and to absorb the waste that's generated - INCLUDING the forest area needed to absorb the CO2 that's produced by burning fossil fuels.
Do you feel that the per capita ecological footprint should be roughly (not exactly, but more or less) the same for all people?
Hypothetically, if the population of the world was, say 2 to 3 billion less than what it is, do you think the current level of consumption in western countries is sustainable? And wouldn't contribute to climate change?
(Disclaimer: I do believe that the current human population is perhaps too much and must go down - but naturally)
We're in overshoot already. The majority of the world's people should expect to die well before the 70 year mark that is about average in resource-rich environments.
The majority of the calories produced by industrial agriculture require an equal or greater input of calories from oil and natural gas in the form of fuel, fertilizers and pesticides to exist. In the inevitable contraction of oil supplies and depletion of gas fields the resources to produce food cheaply simply will not exist.
The majority of food calories comes from a very small number of strains of corn, rice, wheat and soybeans. Due to genetic bottlenecks these crops WILL suffer viral, fungal and bacterial attack that will decimate the production of at least one crop for several years. World grain consumption has exceeded production for the majority of the last ten years and reserve stocks are dwindling.
Climate change is real, is happening now and is decaying the ability to produce crops as we speak. This process will accelerate without intervention until human extinction is a real possibility. Google: 'methane release, siberian, permafrost' if you don't believe me.
It really doesn't matter how many children you have; how many do you want to see die early? Have that many children.
Malthus was an optimist. He had no way of knowing that humans could destroy the atmosphere and the oceans.
Pangolin, as someone who thinks and reads about "ecological footprint", I am only too aware of "overshoot". I also mark the "Overshoot Day" for the last couple of years. I completely agree with your point about what it takes to produce food. On climate change? I'm already part of the "choir" - so, no preaching needed :) I have known about the methane under the permafrost and the potential danger of runaway climate change if that were to be released, for some years now.
The reason I raised those questions about population is because of my conviction that whatever resources are there today need to be shared equitably, while working on climate stabilization and actively promoting a reduction in population (but by natural means, over a couple of generations). I also believe (I have to be hopeful if I have to carry on with my life) that with an understanding of "ecological footprint" and a conscious choice of a simpler lifestyle and a smaller footprint, we just might avert catastrophe. It would all depend on what the current population does. If the 'system' (economic, global trade, etc.) needs to be changed to avert danger, I am all for it. Where I disagree with some people is in blaming the population alone, without regard to our own consumption levels. I also disagree with those who think a majority of the population can eat meat regularly, on a sustainable basis - grass-fed or not, - while blaming overpopulation elsewhere.
"Hypothetically, if the population of the world was, say 2 to 3 billion less than what it is, do you think the current level of consumption in western countries is sustainable? And wouldn't contribute to climate change?"
Just a guess, since the human population has clearly overshot the carrying capacity of the Earth, but I suspect a population of about 1 billion could enjoy a Western style lifestyle.
Since the carbon cycle is out of whack and the effects of the already altered atmosphere will persist for centuries such a population should use solar or wind energy.
Using petrochemicals as fuel is wasteful and the only use for these archeological bio-products should be for petrochemical derivatives (e.g. plastics) until they are replaced by currently growing biological products.
However alternative lifestyles could be extremely satisfying. Consider dispersed farming communities of about 100-200 people that were prevalent in historic times. Such local communities, tied together by modern telecommunications, would have the advantage of raising children within a natural environment that they would be inclined to preserve.
I think your observations present a complex set of questions; but a few thoughts if you will allow me:
If mankind is affecting the climate (hard to believe it isn't) I think it is because of our chosen lifestyles rather than the sheer number of us. But it is also our kind of lifestyle (and the supportive ideologies) that allows for and/or encourages the ever-increasing number of us.
It may also be a no longer practicable 'survival mechanism' left over from earlier days when mankind's numbers were few and its mortality rate high. If so, we may have little or no control over this impulse - though there may be ways to mitigate its effects.
Historically 'over-population' was relieved/corrected by war, famine, disease, and/or emmigration to other places. But since most 'other places' are now populated (if habitable), this is no longer a viable response. LOL Perhaps we can ship them to Mars like some of the Star-Trek crowd suggest.
As for war, famine, and disease: most modern nations - save for the obvious exceptions - have at least momentarily refrained from internacine warfare. Medical technology has eliminated most large-scale diseases (so far) - though availability of treatment remains spotty and problematic - and more efficient agricultural methodology, political decisions leading to better distribution, and population 'sensibility' have taken care of the bulk of famines.
For more what is derogatorialy called 'third world' nations these principles don't apply as readily for various cultural or political reasons. And there, nature more obviously applies the limits in a far more obvious and impersonal way.
Resources are finite and the technological 'revolutions' that provided more efficient exploitation of available resources (the 'green' revolution in India for example) have a point of diminishing returns because the technology is usually meant as a 'fix' (of the previous 'technology') and not meant to be applied in a sustainable way. 'Sustainable technology' is seen as counter-productive under an ideology based on the drive for what is both 'new and improved' - and profitable. This non-sustainable methodology has already shown signs of failure - by design - and thousands of farmers commit suicide each year in India because they can no longer afford to feed themselves on their own farms.
It has been postulated that following closely on the heels of the Great European Plagues of the 14th and 15th centuries the available resources were spread around to fewer individuals who then, and often for the first time, had the spare change to buy things, support essentialy 'non-productive' enterprises like art, music, literature, and philosophy, build and improve infrastructure, found banks, pursue 'science', create businesses, etc. - leading to the Renaissance.
Historically, nature has set the limit of a species' population growth. We have been able to push that limit out a bit because of technology. But the technologies have used in the past is not sustainable and sooner or later nature will enforce the limits on us and...well I'll let you decide what happens then.
Personally, I would like to see the population of the world reduced to a sustainable level, but I have no idea what that level is nor any interest in compelling such a reduction by law or force.
>> nor any interest in compelling such a reduction by law or force.
If we are so irresponsible as to allow the "law and force" of nature to solve our problems, we will wish we had taken an interest in some sort of compulsory action...
Perhaps so, but either way I think nature as the court of last resort will render the verdict.
Personally, for all its 'glories', I think mankind is incapable of learning this lesson and is doomed to extinction or irrelevance.
Let's build a colonizing ship for all the rich, the powerful, the important, and launch it. And leave a window open on it.
I'll go you one further.
"And do you think globalized trade might have something to do with poverty? It might benefit some in the poorer countries, but does it benefit the majority?"
Globalization and trade agreements don't benefit poor countries. They exploit poor countries, allowing multinational companies to move jobs around to those desperate enough to accept the lowest wages, the worst working conditions and the fewest labor rights. As an example, companies like Motorola, RCA and Pepsi, among others, went to Mexico under NAFTA. When lower wages were accepted elsewhere in the world, they abandoned Mexico. Manufacturing in China provides a well behaved work force which belongs to a mandatory government union, which is for the purpose of keeping track of workers, since there are no rights to collectively bargain or to strike. "Opening up Latin America" means basically corporate colonization. You might think it would mean that a south american soft drink would make it into the US market, but what it usually means is that the south american beverage company will be bought for a song by the US multinational, the factory taken over or closed. As Walmart opens throughout the world, small family businesses and even larger foreign department stores begin losing money and closing.
I look forward to seeing answers to these good questions.
Growth expectations are built into money itself. The application of an exponential concept, ie. interest, to money eventually drives growth to extremes on all frontiers, including population. 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. Question interest as a valid economic concept, consume less, and the house of cards will fall.
In a touch of irony, Tuberculosis (and other diseases) will be part of Nature's corrective.
Half of what I read these days feels like a retyping of 'The Limits to Growth' from The Club of Rome which I first read back in grade ten about thirty years ago.
www.clubofrome.org/docs/limits.rtf
It's distressing that knowing exactly what we need to do has no effect on our actions.
The ineffectual nature of the will is a major topic of critiques of early "modern" philosophy.
Aha! So eating is the cause of sewage!
Here are some things I'm thinking in regards to making consumption less.
1. Population control. I think that this can be greatly mitigated by education. I am not just referring to just sexual education either(but that would help). Demonstrating to people just how hard it is to have children. Giving them viable retirement options other than, "my kids will take care of me". Giving people a route to contribue to their society and future without having children. If people are educated not all of them will want the responsibility and sacrifice that is required to have children.
2. Alternatives to "Busy Work" Economics. As was pointed out, one of the big problems we have is more stuff is made and disposed of than we as a world really need. One of the reasons for this is that we have reached a state of technology where we don't everyone working to produce what we actually need. The problem is we still have an economic and social model where if you aren't working you don't get a lot of things that in many cases you need(food, etc.) We need to realistically adjust our economic and social system to the reality that we need far fewer people as active members of our work force than we used to, and it could even be said that many jobs actually produce a net drain on our resources.
Something to think about.
Lates
C23
I have thought a lot about what you said and I couldn't agree more. Probably, we need people working fewer hours rather than some working a lot and some not at all.
Some of us (like my family and I) have made radical reductions in our energy consumption. Others (like most people we know) consume fossil fuels like there's no tomorrow...
They drive here, and fly there. They drive 90 miles to work, drive 200 miles to a birthday party, drive 300 miles to a concert, drive 150 miles to go skiing, drive 75 miles to go fishing, fly 4000 miles to go to a wedding...
We try to set an example, and I know we have influenced some people, especially some of the younger folks. But the gas guzzling continues unabated for most. And (confession) we're really not much better, even though we really, really try.
I wonder what it's going to take to get people to change their ways. How can we get more people to cut back on their consumption of fossil fuels? I think I know the answer.
Dire predictions of global climate change? Nope. Scorching summer days? Nope. Melting glaciers? Nope. Imminent sea level rise? No again.
Bottom line: The price of gas. Period.
I still own a car (1994 toyota small pu) but it gets used so little anymore it just sort of rusting in-place. Against my protests, my wife bought a near-new Hyundai Elantra to replace the well-maintained and still reliable 87 Corolla. But it is seeing little use too. The electric scooters, with a energy-equivalent 400 miles per gallon, provide the local transportation. Fun to ride.
The central AC still has it's winter cover on it. Average summer high here is 83F, average low is 60F. Who needs it?
But is anyone else changing their habits - not here. You are correct, only high fuel (and electricity) prices will force people to change. The crash in oil prices late last year have been a disaster for the cause.
Hey pjd412, I once read somewhere that it takes more energy to manufacture a new car than is consumed during the entire life of the car to drive and maintain it. So we never buy new cars. We still chug along in our 1990 Subaru and the 1987 Jeep is parked when it's not being used to get firewood.
Our winter temperatures here in NW Montana dip into the minus 20 and 30's and rarely get above the freezing mark, so we heat our log cabin with wood. So yeah, we're pumping out the carbon like the rest of us. Our woodstove gobbles up 4 or 5 large dead pine trees per year, so I'm under no illusion that we're contributing to the carbon problem.
I live in a forested area where they do a lot of "timber harvesting". I always try to rescue dead trees from burn piles leftover from nearby logging operations. With big bulldozers they make enormous piles of logs that are too gnarly for the mill, and just light them on fire about a year or two after they are done logging. Some burn piles are so huge they could supply us with 10 years worth of firewood!
In the fall they come along with napalm and set hundreds of these piles ablaze filling the valley with smoke. So in that light, I don't feel too bad about heating our humble abode with a relatively small amount of wood. I've seen forest fires that burn more wood in a half second than we would burn in several lifetimes.
Hey, Moondoggy and pjd412...
Perhaps an enormous downturn in employment will curb appetites for fuel and electricity, and the toys that run on them? Money is still the root of all evil, and many of us will be seeing alot less of it in the near future, if my foresight is even close to the mark...the major problem, again, is lack of money results in eviction...what if it didn't?
this is where the issue of ownership of property comes in...
we're still murderous barbarians, we're just not very upfront about it...which leaves those that aren't comfortable being barbaric struggling with, and losing to, those that are...to move beyond requires those behaving barbarically be brought under control ~ physical control...until we do that, we're just voting, or wishing, or whatever...once control is regained, the next steps would be the development of peaceful, sustainable interaction with the mother planet...always with a wary eye toward those prepared to resume barbarism...fortunately, I believe with all of my being that the true barbarians are rather small in number, and that the true nature of most of us is not that way...we sure let them get away with alot, though...
Another beautiful July day here on the busy Puget Sound...!
dubet, dubet, how gracefully you reflect the truth, "to move beyond requires those behaving barbarically to be brought under control~physical control..." "I believe with all my being that the true barbarians are rather small in number,"
yes, si, oui, the power mad attain it while artists, growers, creators of beauty live quietly but over time have been overcome by those few barbaric seekers of power.
Wonderful post, dubet, we shall overcome, maybe soon.
Revolution a la Marx.
quickstepper, nice lead off post if I may.
Moondoggy, how are our Elk?
I know you care for them with love, I want one to live with me.
azjoe, the elk won't come to live with you, you gotta go live with them.
Hey Dubet, hows it growing?
I just harvested my first red raspberries today. Strawberries and snap peas are still coming on strong. I'm going up into the local mountains tomorrow to go look for wild huckleberries, which are a Montana staple. We're harvesting daily now.
Job? What job? Harvesting is my job for the next 3 months! I'm earning my backcountry ski turns this coming winter, interacting with Mama Earth in the realm of snow crystals.
In the article above we find this sentence: "Competition for land and water, soil fertility depletion and collapse of fisheries are already posing problems for food supply and survival in many parts of the world." These are all problems directly resulting from massive population growth, yet many people who say that they are concerned about the destruction of the environment say that population growth is not a problem.
It is most likely the number one environmental problem, and it also it helps big business thrive. Population growth = consumption. Sure, Americans should consume less, and their economy is most definitely wasteful, but they need jobs, and the jobs are dependent on corporations, and the corporations own the government. Americans could very well become poorer through an economic/environmental catastrophe, but in the meantime they are not thinking about consuming less; they need to work, and they also have the right to reproduce as much as they want to.
Radical economic and social change might come in the form of a huge die-off resulting from war, famine, or epidemics in their peculiar interactions, but, "Change our lifestyle? Never!"
You are speaking to the real cause of enviornmental problems, economic problems and war. And anyone that say's that it isn't is blinded by ideology. Example, if I add 4 million people over a short time span, to an area struggling with water problems, what do you believe the result will be?
Consumption can be controlled, but not by Fiat.
What a reactionary position! I'm sure that the word "Marx" in your handle certainly doesn't reference Karl Marx who totally opposed Malthusian economics.
In fairness to Marx, he was writing at a time when total world population was under a billion and natural resources were seemingly abundant. Were he around today he'd most certainly take into account that we live on a finite planet which we share with other living creatures and vegetation (which also have a right to exist).
Really, what's the endgame here? Just endless breeding and expansion until we crowd every other species out of existence (and ultimately make life uninhabitable for ourselves)? Sustainability needs to be the guiding principle underlying all policies going forward.
The endgame for our maximum population could be defined as the number of humans genetically engineered to photosynthesize that could be supported by the total amount of sunlight reaching Earth. Under those conditions no other life would be able to exist except for certain forms of bacteria and viruses. A quick calculation of incident radiation and photosynthetic efficiency suggests that each human would require 2.5 sq. meters of sunlight for 12 hours each day. This would allow for a maximum population of about 200 trillion covering the entire planet, land and ocean packed like sardines with frequent starvation and death due to overcast days. We could achieve such a population with only 16 more doublings or about 800 years if we maintain the rate of the last 50 years. Such a stark view of our population bomb emphasizes our need to establish our communities living in harmony with the Earth.
Note that under this scenario we are not consuming resources other than those freely and sustainably arriving from the Sun.
This article is right on. But the author appears afraid to say the word - "socialism". That is what it'll take to get us off the consumption bandwagon. We need a new political-economic system that isn't dependent on constantly rising levels of consumption as is required under capitalism.
If we are to have any hope in hell of slowing climate change (and other forms of environmental degradation), in addition to cutting consumption, human population growth needs to be stabilized and eventually reversed. Otherwise any gain realized by cutting consumption will be negated by the increase in population.
Well call me a Malthusian Troll and you will be called one also but you are right on the mark. Fat chance for anything really being done about the population growth. Oh there will be those that swear up and down that population is under control or it will be nice to have billions more people around. They are wrong of course since the human population is replicating like plastic bags. And they are everywhere.
The growth rate is slowing, and in some countries they are experiencing population decline.
The root of the problem is two-fold: 1) the population rate in the poorest countries is skyrocketing, and 2) there is an obscene level of consumption in the U.S., and to a slightly lesser extent, in other First World countries.
"We need profound change – not only government measures and targets but financial systems, the operation of corporations, and people's own expectations of progress and success. " People have been talking change for the last 40 years. How much longer would change really happen? We have dug way to deep of a hole by using a false premise for a shovel that things would always be growing. Now we are going to pay for that mistake and it isn't going to be pretty. We have been in survival mode for some time. As someone said a couple of days ago. Paraphrasing this but they said so what let things crash then we could stop just surviving and start thriving.
Publishing this article in an American newspaper would be considered unpatriotic.