Is there any future?

kamana

Has civilisation banjaxed the world? Does anyone think its sustainable? Do you think our leaders are insane? What can we do about it? Would you agree that attempts to use alternative energy resourses are just as crazy as fossil fuels, on what grounds do you think our way of living deserves to be maintained?? I'm hoping to get an open minded discussion going....

dewsbury

kamana wrote: »

Has civilisation banjaxed the world? Does anyone think its sustainable? Do you think our leaders are insane? What can we do about it? Would you agree that attempts to use alternative energy resourses are just as crazy as fossil fuels, on what grounds do you think our way of living deserves to be maintained?? I'm hoping to get an open minded discussion going....

Does anyone think its sustainable?

Definately not sustainable based on current lifestyles.

Do you think our leaders are insane?
No, but there is a famous quote... A politician is someone who thinks of the next election - A statesman is someone who thinks of the next generation.

Would you agree that attempts to use alternative energy resourses are just as crazy as fossil fuels, on what grounds do you think our way of living deserves to be maintained?
Disagree, if we don't use renewable energy then it will be cold and dark and miserable. I read an article which suggested that there was plenty of renewable energy. We just need to learn how to harness it (and learn it quickly).

kamana

Give a look around the world and their leaders. Where are the statesmen looking to the future generations? Ther aren't any. Civilisation is based on violence and control.


What rewnewable energy are you talking about?

kamana

kamana wrote: »

I'm hoping to get an open minded discussion going....

kamana wrote: »

Civilisation is based on violence and control.

OK...

Civilisation as we know it will change, as it has changed in the past.
The biggest changes will be in the distrubution of energy consumption around the world, countries like China & India will rapidly increase their consumption while the western countries will reduce theie excessive consuimption. BUT world consumption will continue to increase!

Renewable energies such as wave wind & solar will continue to play an ever increasing role in the future. Bio-fuel crops run the risk of displacing food crops in some regions, which could create man-made famines.

Lifestyles can and must change, otherwise the crunch when oil runs down will be much harder to bear. The kinds of changes I would expect to happen are (in no particular order)

• no long commutes to places of employment, meaning that there is either distributed employment and/or everyone lives near work - thus vastly reducing relience on cars.
• housing being constructed to be low energy - possibly clustered to share resources, an apartment block is much more energy efficient than the same number of individual houses.
• goods and services will be generally limited to the local areas that they are produced/provided - no more sending a lorry of beans from Manchester to Galway while another lorry is taking beans (from a differernt manufacturer) in the opposite direction, or runner beans being flown in from Uganda. This will also reverse the trend of supermarkets having HUGE stores that people drive 30km + to shop in, local shops will revive.
• the range of consumer goods will become more limited and be expected to last longer - no more throwing out a DVD player because it's last years model! manufacturers would be expect to make products servicable again rather than deliberatly making them unrepairable.
• an end to long distance holidays - cheap flights etc
• the end of disposible cameras, cutlery, nappies etc

To sum up 19th century living with 21st century health, technology etc
with vastly reduced individual energy consumption.

BraziliaNZ

oh come on I'll give anything up except travelling. Can't we keep that one????
I brought up the idea that we have too much "stuff" in this day and age and we eat too much meat on After Hours a while back and I was laughed out of the forum.
Seriously - cattle farming is a huge issue, we need to find other sources of protein. Fish farming could be the way forward, but I think that's dodgy, doesn't it give you cancer or something? farmed fish that is?

BraziliaNZ

BraziliaNZ wrote: »

I brought up the idea that we have too much "stuff" in this day and age

That's the one thing that must change in the longer term future, energy is used at every points in the "stuffs" lifecycle. The average person in the west probably has more stuff than a small African/ Chinese/Indian village.

BraziliaNZ

yes but if we stop making more and more stuff there are no jobs left anymore. Then people get angry and war starts. Then people work as soldiers and rebuild destroyed countries. Maybe we need war to be sustainable?

Part-time jobs for all, sufficient income to have a resonable standard of living, should need less income as you will have less "stuff" to buy!

Don't forget that as fewer goods will be flying around the world, more local manufacturing jobs will be greated.

BraziliaNZ

people wont accept a lower standard. I mean we wouldn't have a choice but powerful nations like Britain etc. will probably start wars and stuff. We're doomed, I'm just glad I was born into the tail end of the good times.

kamana

BraziliaNZ wrote: »

people wont accept a lower standard. I mean we wouldn't have a choice but powerful nations like Britain etc. will probably start wars and stuff. We're doomed, I'm just glad I was born into the tail end of the good times.

People will accept anything. At the moment we are accepting the destruction of the planet and we are doing feck all about it. We all know about oil companys controling/destroying civilization, we know companys like monsanto poisoning our food with genetic modifications. All we do is talk about how to sustain our living standards, for what? so we can make sure the planet is destroyed.

"How is it conceivable that all our lauded technological progress, our very civilization, is like the axe in the hand of a pathological criminal?" Einstein.

dewsbury

We do indeed face an somewhat tricky next 100 years.

However, ponder this!

The change that people in the western world in the next 100 years will not be nearly as dramatic as the change in the last 100 years.

kamana

dewsbury wrote: »

We do indeed face an somewhat tricky next 100 years.

However, ponder this!

The change that people in the western world in the next 100 years will not be nearly as dramatic as the change in the last 100 years.

I would have to disagree. I think the change coming will be devastating. 100 years ago the population was about 1.5 billion. Today its 6.5, thats a lot of scope for dramatic events.
The devastation that has occured in the past 100 years is staggering, the nexy 100 holds a lot of problems and a return to a way of living enjoyed by our ancestors in harmony with nature.

Celticfire

kamana wrote: »

The devastation that has occured in the past 100 years is staggering, the nexy 100 holds a lot of problems and a return to a way of living enjoyed by our ancestors in harmony with nature.

What sorts of devastation that happened over the last hundred years are you talking about?

kamana

Celticfire wrote: »

What sorts of devastation that happened over the last hundred years are you talking about?

Extinction is as old as life on Earth - about 3.5 billion years - but scientists calculate that we are losing species at a rate of somewhere between 1,000 and 10,000 times higher than the natural "background" rate of extinction. This means that technically we are going through a period of "mass extinction", the sixth that we know about over the hundreds of millions of years of the fossil record. But unlike the previous five mass extinctions, this one is largely caused by the actions of a single species - Homo sapiens. This is caused by Industralised Civilization, Agriculture, Monoculture. There isn't a clean river left in Ireland.
Certain Native American tribes used to consider the consequences of any decision they made for the next seven generations...what are we doing??

WalkingEasy

Kamana;
Has civilisation banjaxed the world?

We`re making a good stab of it. Though i think the world will "banjax" civilisation first.
Does anyone think its sustainable?

Explosive population growth and higher expectations of living standards all based upon cheap energy , would leaving guessing no .

Kamana;
Do you think our leaders are insane?

Millions of average German citizens went along with their leaders , this a nation of people noted for their rational , analytical minds .

kamana;
Would you agree that attempts to use alternative energy resources are just as crazy as fossil fuels, on what grounds do you think our way of living deserves to be maintained

I disagree, the use of wind / tidal/ solar etc are obviously cleaner than more coal burning power stations.
Whether we "deserve it or not , our way of living cannot be maintained. 6 Billion people and growing, all desiring 1st World standard of living , complete with all the gadgets and accessories.
Somethings got to give.

kamana

WalkingEasy wrote: »

Kamana;
Has civilisation banjaxed the world?

We`re making a good stab of it. Though i think the world will "banjax" civilisation first.
Does anyone think its sustainable?

Explosive population growth and higher expectations of living standards all based upon cheap energy , would leaving guessing no .

Kamana;
Do you think our leaders are insane?

Millions of average German citizens went along with their leaders , this a nation of people noted for their rational , analytical minds .

kamana;
Would you agree that attempts to use alternative energy resources are just as crazy as fossil fuels, on what grounds do you think our way of living deserves to be maintained

I disagree, the use of wind / tidal/ solar etc are obviously cleaner than more coal burning power stations.
Whether we "deserve it or not , our way of living cannot be maintained. 6 Billion people and growing, all desiring 1st World standard of living , complete with all the gadgets and accessories.
Somethings got to give.

Are you trying to blame the German citizens for what their leaders did? This goes back to my earlier point that civilization is based on violence. When your life is threatened and you're given the choice of comply or death, most comply.


The use of "green" energy is cleaner than coal burning power stations but don't be fooled into thinking that it's a solution. Rather than thinking that they are cleaner start thinking that they are less dirty but still harmful.
The manufacture of these products require huge amounts of energy and resources, photovalvic cells don't grow on trees...

McSandwich

kamana wrote: »

The use of "green" energy is cleaner than coal burning power stations but don't be fooled into thinking that it's a solution. Rather than thinking that they are cleaner start thinking that they are less dirty but still harmful.
The manufacture of these products require huge amounts of energy and resources, photovalvic cells don't grow on trees...

Manufacturing anything requires energy.. If a polluting energy source (e.g. oil) is used in the manufacture something else (e.g. solar cells) which can supply many times more clean energy during its lifetime, then that must be better than simply burning the oil.

This is an interesting renewable energy initiative : http://www.trecers.net/index.html

WalkingEasy

kamana wrote: »

Are you trying to blame the German citizens for what their leaders did? This goes back to my earlier point that civilization is based on violence. When your life is threatened and you're given the choice of comply or death, most comply.


The use of "green" energy is cleaner than coal burning power stations but don't be fooled into thinking that it's a solution. Rather than thinking that they are cleaner start thinking that they are less dirty but still harmful.
The manufacture of these products require huge amounts of energy and resources, photovalvic cells don't grow on trees...

Yes , i believe the German People were complicit in WW2. A handful of "leaders" could not have committed such an enormous ghastly extermination policy.This is the most frightening aspect, normal people getting on with their job, doing as they are told , the whole way up the chain of command, citizen to fuhrer.
And we in modern society are complicit in the destruction of our envoirnment, heads down getting on with our jobs, doing as we are told.
I believe it was an Irish man that said " All that is nessessary for the triumph of evilis that good men do nothing "

Violence is not an invention of the "civilised age" , it has been with us since the dawn of man. When we cast our mind back to "simpler times" we are always in danger of over romanticizing .
re; Native Americans society, it was also based on violence.

Kamana: re; " photovalvic cells don`t grow on trees "

Have a look at this;
http://www.futurepundit.com/archives/002210.html
The advocates of one proposed approach claim chlorophyll-photovoltaic cell may be able to convert 72% of sunlight to electricity.

So Kamana, do you think civilisation will crash and burn quickly , or slowly fade out ?
Or cobble together energy from where ever they can get it , and limp into the next 30 years.......?

Emmm daddy or chips , daddy or chips !

kamana

Walkingeasy "A handful of "leaders" could not have committed such an enormous ghastly extermination policy.This is the most frightening aspect, normal people getting on with their job, doing as they are told , the whole way up the chain of command, citizen to fuhrer."


You try to make it sound like they were only 3 of 'em!! It was the might of the German army who carried out the extermination policy not the citizens.

I never said violence was an invention of civilization. Violence is part of every culture and the history of every nation. I said civilization is based on violence. Who controls you? What happens if you step out of line? If you don't go to work to make rent/mortgage what happens? You get kicked out. What if you don't go peacefully and decide to make a stand? You get arrested. What if you make a stand against a motorway ripping through the heart of our heritage? Where is your police force? Who stands up for rivers, forests, heritage, plants, insects, birds, mammals and fish?? Do we consider these less important than getting to work quicker?
A thousand years ago this land was inhabited by warriors who walked amongst bears, wolves and eagles....what awaits us in next 1000....

oscarBravo

Just a polite reminder: this is the Green Issues board, not History or Politics.

WalkingEasy

oscarBravo wrote: »

Just a polite reminder: this is the Green Issues board, not History or Politics.

Its next to impossible to discuss mankind's impact on the environment without mentioning history or politics.
The mention of WW2 was not a diatribe against the German peoples, i was just using it as an example of how large swaths of a population can get swept along with a particular ideology.

Green Issues are informed by the past, and shape future social policies.... History/ Politics.

WalkingEasy

WalkingEasy wrote: »

Its next to impossible to discuss mankind's impact on the environment without mentioning history or politics.
The mention of WW2 was not a diatribe against the German peoples, i was just using it as an example of how large swaths of a population can get swept along with a particular ideology.

Green Issues are informed by the past, and shape future social policies.... History/ Politics.

It is if you want to discuss the wider implications of any policies that have a green agenda, but at the same time it is easy to focus just on the environmental issues in hand.

This discussion I believe is (should) be about how mankind can ensure that decent living standards are maintained in a future relient on renewable energy.

kamana

I agree. Green issues take in a whole range of topics. Trying to discuss this subject without history, politics, economics etc would be pointless. It affects our very existence. That means every subject is fair game.

kamana

To drive this discussion on we have to set up a few basic point we all agree on. Is Industrial Civilization sustainable?

DublinWriter

kamana wrote: »

I'm hoping to get an open minded discussion going....

Nope. Personally I think that 2012 will be the end of the Petro-chemical age of human existance. There won't be a sudden end to the production of oil, instead it will be more of a Weimar Republic situation with the gradual debasement of global currencies leading to massive levels of inflation and therefore ending global currency markets.

We're already seeing the start of this now. There's no viable alternative to petro-chemicals given a) the world's already insatiable appetite and b) China and India coming on stream as major consumers.

WalkingEasy

kamana wrote: »

To drive this discussion on we have to set up a few basic point we all agree on. Is Industrial Civilization sustainable?

No.
It can`t be with finite resources available.

Is Civilisation sustainable in this form, if not, is there any other form you imagine is sustainable ?

I made a comment earlier on http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=55872066&postcount=4
"19th century living with 21st century technology", put simply a complete lifestyle change for all. Energy will be expensive and treated as such.

no more long distance commuting - personal transport will be limited (to what - I don't know)
goods & services will be limited to the local areas they serve - large number of small manufacturers producing sufficient to supply the "local" market - an end of producing low value items and transporting them halfway around the world when they can be produced in the same country/province.

Towns will no longer be lit up like christmas trees as this is wasteful..
the list goes on

and on.

These things will of course impact on people's expectations in life.

WalkingEasy

Deleted User wrote: »

I made a comment earlier on http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=55872066&postcount=4
"19th century living with 21st century technology", put simply a complete lifestyle change for all. Energy will be expensive and treated as such.

no more long distance commuting - personal transport will be limited (to what - I don't know)
goods & services will be limited to the local areas they serve - large number of small manufacturers producing sufficient to supply the "local" market - an end of producing low value items and transporting them halfway around the world when they can be produced in the same country/province.

Towns will no longer be lit up like christmas trees as this is wasteful..
the list goes on

and on.

These things will of course impact on people's expectations in life.

I am inclined to agree with your low energy outlook.
I believe that for the majority of people, our sphere of influence will shrink , to the distance you can walk or cycle.

Large scale food production without cheap oil is impossible , or at least until society is retro-fitted to accommodate a " new" fuel source. This retro-fit would be a challenge on a scale/cost never before undertaken, it would also rely on using the dwindling expensive oil reserve to build it...this is the conundrum at hand.

My only fear is that we will tear apart what little natural environment we have left, in an effort to maintain a "standard of living" that is clearly unsustainable.
I believe Cuba experienced a sharp sudden shock when the U.S.S.R collapsed, ended their source of cheap oil.......
We have a bit of time prepare, but the political silence is deafening.

bonkey

WalkingEasy wrote: »

No.
It can`t be with finite resources available.

By that definition, nothing bound to a single planet is sustainable. Indeed, in its strictest sense, nothing bound to a non-infinite universe is sustainable.

I guess part of the problem is that the term "sustainable" is poorly defined. Are we talking about forever, for the forseeable future, for some arbitrary period like 100 years....or what?

Similarly, the use of the term "civilisation" seems to be disjointed from any definition of population. Our industrial civilisation would be certainly sustainable for the imaginable future, if we limited the population strictly enough. On the other hand, if we allow unchecked population, then no model is sustainable.

So really, its no wonder that different people are talking at cross purposes. Its beyond question that our current model, complete with our current population trends, is unsustainable.

I'm reminded of Diamond's book "Collapse" at this point. The main point of the book (backed by other people's study as well) is that societies / civilisations don't collapse based on single factors, but generally when multiple factors combine. Additionally, there's the point that failure to recognise and adapt to these problems seems to be a major factor in determining whether societies pull back from the brink of collapse, or embrace it.

WalkingEasy

bonkey wrote: »

By that definition, nothing bound to a single planet is sustainable. Indeed, in its strictest sense, nothing bound to a non-infinite universe is sustainable.

I guess part of the problem is that the term "sustainable" is poorly defined. Are we talking about forever, for the forseeable future, for some arbitrary period like 100 years....or what?

Similarly, the use of the term "civilisation" seems to be disjointed from any definition of population. Our industrial civilisation would be certainly sustainable for the imaginable future, if we limited the population strictly enough. On the other hand, if we allow unchecked population, then no model is sustainable.

So really, its no wonder that different people are talking at cross purposes. Its beyond question that our current model, complete with our current population trends, is unsustainable.

I'm reminded of Diamond's book "Collapse" at this point. The main point of the book (backed by other people's study as well) is that societies / civilisations don't collapse based on single factors, but generally when multiple factors combine. Additionally, there's the point that failure to recognise and adapt to these problems seems to be a major factor in determining whether societies pull back from the brink of collapse, or embrace it.

Though we are bound to this planet , we receive all our energy directly/indirectly from the sun. Given that its eventual demise will coincide with this planet , perhaps we could use its remaining lifetime as a time frame .

I answered no ,
to the question posed by Kamana ; Is Industrial Civilisation sustainable ?
Industrial being the key word here, mass produced goods using finite resources in a system inextricably linked to growth and increased demand is not sustainable.
Agrarian Civilisation? perhaps, if we could maintain our resources (renew as we take), manage the soil fertility etc (grow our plant humus) permaculture etc. Monoculture would be impossible without exhausting the soil, these of course are only small scale solutions.
Of course unchecked population growth is at the very heart of the matter.
But, population control is a dirty word for a lot of people , who will do the controlling ? Will there be forced abortions etc.

I must read "Collapse" , i have seen a lecture by Jared Diamond on the same theme, very interesting (frightening) viewing.

kamana

there's the point that failure to recognise and adapt to these problems seems to be a major factor in determining whether societies pull back from the brink of collapse, or embrace it.

I think that we do recognise the problems but adapting to them is the question. We can all see the destructive nature of our civilization war/peak oil/agriculture/deforestation/industrial fishing etc... but how do we tackle these? Do we expect our governments to actually wake up one morning and say that we have made terrible mistakes and genuinely try to make amends? I don't think so. Is this acceptable? What can we as people do to make a real difference?

WalkingEasy

kamana wrote: »

I think that we do recognise the problems but adapting to them is the question. We can all see the destructive nature of our civilization war/peak oil/agriculture/deforestation/industrial fishing etc... but how do we tackle these? Do we expect our governments to actually wake up one morning and say that we have made terrible mistakes and genuinely try to make amends? I don't think so. Is this acceptable? What can we as people do to make a real difference?

We the people, are the government apparently. So what does that say about us...the people?
Apathy is quiet frankly one of the most dangerous aspects of man-kind.
We have become so specialised in the modern age , as to sit back and think someone else "more qualified" than us is looking after it.
I`m guilty of it myself to be honest ,we all are . We have become insulated from the effects of our choices , my home and life are full of "stuff" that came from "somewhere else", at best a label on a box.
I don`t see the Dams , oil wells , clear cut forests open cast mines , outta sight outta mind.
I suppose we can only begin by changing what i can in my sphere of influence and hope 6 billion others do the same.

WalkingEasy

WalkingEasy wrote: »

We the people, are the government apparently. So what does that say about us...the people?
Apathy is quiet frankly one of the most dangerous aspects of man-kind.
We have become so specialised in the modern age , as to sit back and think someone else "more qualified" than us is looking after it.
I`m guilty of it myself to be honest ,we all are . We have become insulated from the effects of our choices , my home and life are full of "stuff" that came from "somewhere else", at best a label on a box.
I don`t see the Dams , oil wells , clear cut forests open cast mines , outta sight outta mind.
I suppose we can only begin by changing what i can in my sphere of influence and hope 6 billion others do the same.

That's one of the reasons that the "global warming" message is being pushed so hard in recent years, whether you beleive in it or not.
By pushing the "polluter pays" philosophy, people are being made aware that they are ultimately responsible for there being so wasteful with resources.

Industry provides what consumers want, if demand for wasteful products is discouraged then there would be less waste. Banning certain products would be very unpopular, but persuading consumers to use less wasteful alternatives is the better option.

I believe that the Inca Civilisation collapsed primariarly because the fuel supplies (wood) became scarse and the distance it had to be carried eventually made the cities unsustainable and they were abandoned.

In some parts of the world, Civilisation as we know it may well collapse, but where changes to a low impact way of life (making full use of sustainable energy) have been enbraced there is a chance that civilisation will continue but in a different form.

nmk

The a Average Irish person is responsible for about 12T of CO2 per annum.... and this equates to the energy use, etc (give or take average's here).

That could be split up into several catagories
1. Travel ( about 40% of national energy & Co2 emmissions according to SEI's energy balance for 2006)
2. Residential energy use - heating, lighting, washing, TV's etc ~ 25%
3. Commercial - buying goods and services.

Now if we had to go to a reduced energy / emissions lifestyle that is sustainable (approx 80% decrease i have heard, but can't back it up!!) we have to reduce those figures by 80%.

A previous poster has already detailed long commutes as being a No No. 15% in the bag here, coupled with technology changes over the next 10 years). Then foreign travel (energy consumption reduction) from 25% to 5% will save alot.... you can still travel, but it will be on trains and boats taking a long time, so 1/ year is more realistic.

100% is now 65%.

Higher building standards, low energy bulbs, better behaviour, better design ( a woman told me the other day she had 170 50w halogens in her house, bill of 500/2months. I have 8 CFL's. It can be done. 28% to 8% over the next 10 -20 years is possible.

100% is now 45%.

Consumption.... The list is huge -
1. Consumerism in general - move to longer lasting better appliances, slow down the buying of woodies type stuff that gets thrown out the following year. could we reduce this from 25% to 10% of our energy/ carbon uses.

Down to 30% now.

2. Food. meat consumption (i love my steak!) will have to be reduced considerably. a New scientist published study last week said that ugandan runner beans was much much better than the cow in the field next to your house as a food source. 20 % to 10% a possibility??

Reached our target.

Now all we need to do is keep the population growing less than the rate of increasing food / Renewable production technical advances...... easy?

The reason i posted this is to point out that, as most people on this forum are already convinced of, there is no one problem (global warming, higher energy costs, higher food costs, higer population etc.), there is also no one solution. There is a variety of things that can be done to reduce the stresses on our plant/resources.

so drive your small efficient diesel as little as you can to a local job, go one one holiday a year, by public transport if possible. Insulate you house ( government grants even available now!!) use CFL's sparingly, and eat meat sparingly..... It's not that hard!:)

Food for thought, Sorry if i haven't got the time to post references for my assumptions, but they are only broadly accurate, just to add to the discussion.

bonkey

WalkingEasy wrote: »

Though we are bound to this planet , we receive all our energy directly/indirectly from the sun. Given that its eventual demise will coincide with this planet , perhaps we could use its remaining lifetime as a time frame .

If we accept that extra-solar-system migration/travel will not be obtained in that timeframe....sure. That's reasonable.

Industrial being the key word here, mass produced goods using finite resources in a system inextricably linked to growth and increased demand is not sustainable.

I would beg to differ. It has enabled continuous growth and continuous increased demand, but it does not require that they exist.

Of course unchecked population growth is at the very heart of the matter.
But, population control is a dirty word for a lot of people , who will do the controlling ? Will there be forced abortions etc.

Its interesting to note that almost without exception, indigenous population in modern, developed societies is dropping. The implication would seem to be that poverty and need are two of the biggest drivers of population growth.

Now, I'm aware that we don't have the resources to support our current global population with an average lifestyle equivalent to the current average in developed nations, but it would still suggest that a long-term equilibrium may be obtainable, without sacrificing industrialisation etc.

kamana

bonkey wrote: »

Now, I'm aware that we don't have the resources to support our current global population with an average lifestyle equivalent to the current average in developed nations, but it would still suggest that a long-term equilibrium may be obtainable, without sacrificing industrialisation etc.

That is lunacy. How can there be long term equilibrium in any model if you use more than you put in? There is only so much juice in an orange no matter how hard you squeeze it. You're talking about industrialisation as something that needs to be saved when in fact it needs to be stopped. What about our planet being sacrificed on the altar of civilization. Simply put, this world can survive without us, we cannot survive without it.

djpbarry

kamana wrote: »

How can there be long term equilibrium in any model if you use more than you put in?

Stop using more than you put in?

kamana wrote: »

You're talking about industrialisation as something that needs to be saved when in fact it needs to be stopped.

Why? Shouldn't sustainable industry be considered as a viable alternative?

kamana

djpbarry wrote: »

Stop using more than you put in?
Why? Shouldn't sustainable industry be considered as a viable alternative?

Industry by it very nature is destructive. It relies on other practices that are also destructive like mining, logging etc. By products are pollution of rivers/oceans and global warming.
If you do stop using more than you put in, that obviously leads to an end of industry!
What we do to the planet, we do to ourselves and our grandkids. "we are a culture that kills our grandchildren to feed our children"

bonkey

kamana wrote: »

That is lunacy.

Which is? Recognising that our current system is untenable, or suggesting that said system must change and that an equilibrium could be found?

There is only so much juice in an orange no matter how hard you squeeze it.

Yup. And if fewer people want some, and its shared equitably, everyone can still have a taste.

You're talking about industrialisation as something that needs to be saved when in fact it needs to be stopped.

Actually, I'm talking about industrialisation as something that need not necessarily be stopped - that our options aren't as limited as you are claiming. I am additionally recognising the limitations that must be recognised if we choose one path over the other.

What about our planet being sacrificed on the altar of civilization.

Tosh. Civilisation will destroy itself long before getting close to destroying the planet.

kamana

bonkey wrote: »

Which is? Recognising that our current system is untenable, or suggesting that said system must change and that an equilibrium could be found?

Where is the equilibrium going to be found? In the last 100 years three quarters of the earths forests have been cut down. Every year a section of the sea bed the size of the united states is destroyed by deep sea trawlers. There are approx 150 areas of the oceans known as dead zones because of the lack of oxygen in the water caused by agriculture.

Yup. And if fewer people want some, and its shared equitably, everyone can still have a taste.

A taste of what? A polluted toxic planet? No thanks. How are fewer numbers going to be obtained? A cull or a continuation of this insane culture?

Actually, I'm talking about industrialisation as something that need not necessarily be stopped - that our options aren't as limited as you are claiming. I am additionally recognising the limitations that must be recognised if we choose one path over the other.

What do you think are the essentials of existence? Do you need ipod/ikea/argos/ford/exxon mobil/esb/monsanto/ microsoft etc. to survive? One of the problems is perceived entitlement of a consumer world. All that is required is an intimate knowledge of your environment (whats left of it )

Tosh. Civilisation will destroy itself long before getting close to destroying the planet.

If you concede that civilization will destroy itself why are you concerned about finding equilibrium in our industrial consumption? Surely you're just choosing how we are going to kill ourselves..

bonkey

kamana wrote: »

In the last 100 years three quarters of the earths forests have been cut down. Every year a section of the sea bed the size of the united states is destroyed by deep sea trawlers. There are approx 150 areas of the oceans known as dead zones because of the lack of oxygen in the water caused by agriculture.

At the start of this thread, you said that you hoped "to get an open minded discussion going." Now, you're telling me Im insane for disagreeing with you about industrialisation, and as evidence are supplying examples of what I have already agreed is unsustainable. We appear to have different understandings of the term "open minded".

A taste of what? A polluted toxic planet? No thanks. How are fewer numbers going to be obtained? A cull or a continuation of this insane culture?

You gave an example of an orange. I re-used your example. Why are you now trying to re-interpret that into something else?

What do you think are the essentials of existence? Do you need ipod/ikea/argos/ford/exxon mobil/esb/monsanto/ microsoft etc. to survive? One of the problems is perceived entitlement of a consumer world. All that is required is an intimate knowledge of your environment (whats left of it )

I note you are not attacking industrialisation here, but consumerism. You should note that nowhere have I defended consumerism. Nowhere have I suggested that it is something we can continue to embrace as a society. Nowhere have I even suggested that consumerism is a requirement of industrialisation.

Please...attack the mentality of consumerism all you like, but don't continue to make the mistake that I am in support of it simply because I do not believe industrialisation is, in and of itself, unsustainable.

If you concede that civilization will destroy itself

I didn't concede any such thing. I responded to the notion that the planet is being sacrificed on some altar by noting that we can't kill the planet because we would destroy ourselves first.

I do not, however, accept that it is an either/or situation...that either we die, or the planet does.

why are you concerned about finding equilibrium in our industrial consumption? Surely you're just choosing how we are going to kill ourselves..

Equilibrium, if we are able to find it, would mean that we're not choosing how to kill ourselves...we're choosing how to live.

I am saying we have many possible paths which we can follow in terms of trying to find a future. I haven't figured out if you agree that there are any paths that don't lead to us killing ourselves off, because all you seem to have done so far is attack me for not agreeing without (open-minded) discussion that industrialisation has to be abandoned.

On the assumption that you do believe there is some way for man to continue as a species, then you must believe that an equilibrium can be found somehow - that is the only way we can continue.

If that assumption is correct, then please stop attacking me for suggesting that an equilibrium can be somehow found, because you agree that it can. We may differ on the somehow, but you're currently attacking the very suggestion that it can be found.

If, conversely, my assumption is wrong and you believe that no option is sustainable, then it is you and not I who is suggesting that all we can do is choose the way we kill ourselves. If thats the case, then even though its not the argument I'm making, I would note that you are attacking the very position you agree with!

I have to ask...do you really want the open-minded discussion you asked for, or just the chance to rail at anyone who doesn't agree with you? If its the latter, then please...tell me, because I have little interest in merely serving as the target of your rage.

kamana

bonkey wrote: »

At the start of this thread, you said that you hoped "to get an open minded discussion going." Now, you're telling me Im insane for disagreeing with you about industrialisation, and as evidence are supplying examples of what I have already agreed is unsustainable. We appear to have different understandings of the term "open minded".

I never said you were insane but I did state that what you said was insane. I hope you remain clear in the difference

You gave an example of an orange. I re-used your example. Why are you now trying to re-interpret that into something else?

I must apologize. I was unaware of a limit on fruit based analogies.

I note you are not attacking industrialisation here, but consumerism. You should note that nowhere have I defended consumerism. Nowhere have I suggested that it is something we can continue to embrace as a society. Nowhere have I even suggested that consumerism is a requirement of industrialisation

.

You're splitting hairs. Industrialisation and consumerism are so entwined that trying to discuss one subject without the other is like trying to unscramble an egg. (feel free to use unlimited poultry references)

Equilibrium, if we are able to find it, would mean that we're not choosing how to kill ourselves...we're choosing how to live.

I am saying we have many possible paths which we can follow in terms of trying to find a future. I haven't figured out if you agree that there are any paths that don't lead to us killing ourselves off, because all you seem to have done so far is attack me for not agreeing without (open-minded) discussion that industrialisation has to be abandoned.

On the assumption that you do believe there is some way for man to continue as a species, then you must believe that an equilibrium can be found somehow - that is the only way we can continue.

If that assumption is correct, then please stop attacking me for suggesting that an equilibrium can be somehow found, because you agree that it can. We may differ on the somehow, but you're currently attacking the very suggestion that it can be found.

If, conversely, my assumption is wrong and you believe that no option is sustainable, then it is you and not I who is suggesting that all we can do is choose the way we kill ourselves. If thats the case, then even though its not the argument I'm making, I would note that you are attacking the very position you agree with!

I have to ask...do you really want the open-minded discussion you asked for, or just the chance to rail at anyone who doesn't agree with you? If its the latter, then please...tell me, because I have little interest in merely serving as the target of your rage.

You are looking for equilibrium in the wrong place. You cling to a notion that industrialisation is somehow beneficial to us.
I do believe that there is a future for human and non human kind and that future is not found in industry. No industrial future is sustainable. Civilization based on industry is not sustainable.
The equilibrium you seek is with nature not with machines.

maniac101

bonkey wrote: »

Equilibrium, if we are able to find it, would mean that we're not choosing how to kill ourselves...we're choosing how to live.

Fertility rates have apparently remained the same or have slightly declined over a period of several hundred years. The population explosion of the last 150 years is due to increased access to improved medical care globally and to our ability to produce more food. So longevity, not procreation, is the cause the exponential population increase. In other words, the equilibrium has been lost because of our ability to survive better in our environment. Yes, you could argue that a new equilibrium could be reached by reducing the fertility rate (birthrate) somehow, and I think that's what you're suggesting. This ultimately involves forcing women in those countries that place the least demand on the world's resources to have fewer children, so that those of us living in countries that are more responsible for global resource depletion can continue to live tolerable lives.

Of course, as our diets improve over time and our ability to tackle disease increases, our life expectancy will increase beyond current levels. Using your equilibrium model, we would then have to reduce fertility rates further, leading to an ageing population and a drop in number of humans on the planet. This in turn would lead to a new set of species-threatening problems.

Please...attack the mentality of consumerism all you like, but don't continue to make the mistake that I am in support of it simply because I do not believe industrialisation is, in and of itself, unsustainable.

Consumerism is the philosophy of ever-increasing consumption of goods; Industrialisation is the increasing of a manufacturing industry base, essentially to feed that consumer demand. So industrialisation and consumerism are two sides of the same coin. You can't have one without the other. All industrial activity is concerned with the manufacture or transformation of goods that are consumed by humans in one form or another. Industrialisation (i.e. increasing industrial activity) requires an increase in consumption. I think you're suggesting that consumption of goods should be maintained at a more sustainable level, and I agree with this. But this requires a reversal of consumerism and therefore a reduction of industrial activity.

bonkey

maniac101 wrote: »

Fertility rates have apparently remained the same or have slightly declined over a period of several hundred years.

Globally, yes. If you look at fertility rates in a more select manner, you'll notice - as I've already mentioned - that in developed nations it has dropped. Indeed, in many European nations, the fertility rate is below the line at which population would hold steady, and that only immigration is driving population growth.

Yes, you could argue that a new equilibrium could be reached by reducing the fertility rate (birthrate) somehow, and I think that's what you're suggesting.

Not entirely. I'm suggesting that the exponential growth of population must end if we are to find any equilibrium. I'm not suggesting that this alone will result in a sustainable model, merely that it is a requirement of any such model.

This ultimately involves forcing women in those countries that place the least demand on the world's resources to have fewer children, so that those of us living in countries that are more responsible for global resource depletion can continue to live tolerable lives.

I said that the implication would seem to be that poverty and need are two of the biggest drivers of population growth. I'm not sure how you took from that a suggestion that we force the poor to do something so we can maintain our greed.

I was, rather, suggesting that we need to abandon our greed, and resolve their poverty.

Reproduction rates in Western Europe are below 2.0 children per couple. No-one forced us into that situation. Studies have shown that even within Western Europe, or within indivdual nations, that figure is reached by those with a better standard of living and education having fewer children, and those with a lower standard of education and living having more.

No-one has forced the better off Europeans to have fewer kids. All I am doing is suggesting there is a lesson to be learned there.

This in turn would lead to a new set of species-threatening problems.

Everything ultimately leads to species-threatening problems. Thats the nature of a dynamic system. Arguably, farming has led to the most species- or civilisation-threatening problems in human history....but you'll find few people who'll suggest that we need to abandon it and return to being a hunter-gatherer species.

Industrialisation is the increasing of a manufacturing industry base, essentially to feed that consumer demand. So industrialisation and consumerism are two sides of the same coin. You can't have one without the other.

I disagree. YOu can't have industrialisation without consumer demand, but this is not quite the same as consumerism. Industrialism is a means to supply consumer needs just as much as it is a means to supply consumer wants. Consumerism centers on this latter aspect alone.

I think you're suggesting that consumption of goods should be maintained at a more sustainable level, and I agree with this. But this requires a reversal of consumerism and therefore a reduction of industrial activity.

I agree entirely. I was rejecting the idea that we must necessarily abandon industrial activity to find a solution. Indeed, I would go so far as to say that trying to frame the problem in terms of industrialisation is doomed to failure. The question should not be "what do we do about the level of industrialisation", and more about "what do we do about greed and inequality". Answer that, and industrialisation will take care of itself.

bonkey

kamana wrote: »

You are looking for equilibrium in the wrong place. You cling to a notion that industrialisation is somehow beneficial to us.

I see. Its as simple as that, is it? You're right, I'm wrong. You won't offer explanations or justifications for your stance...merely tell me I'm wrong.

I guess open-minded discussion isn't what you wanted and see little point in us continuing this to-and-fro.

maniac101

bonkey wrote: »

I'm not sure how you took from that a suggestion that we force the poor to do something so we can maintain our greed.

..and...

bonkey wrote: »

Our industrial civilisation would be certainly sustainable for the imaginable future, if we limited the population strictly enough. On the other hand, if we allow unchecked population, then no model is sustainable.

Lol! Can't you see the contradiction in your two posts above? Would you be happier if I replaced the word 'forcing' with 'strictly limiting' in my earlier post?

I was, rather, suggesting that we need to abandon our greed, and resolve their poverty.

Well, you won't get anyone to argue against you on that one, although I missed the resolving poverty bit in your earlier posts!

Reproduction rates in Western Europe are below 2.0 children per couple. No-one forced us into that situation. Studies have shown that even within Western Europe, or within indivdual nations, that figure is reached by those with a better standard of living and education having fewer children, and those with a lower standard of education and living having more.

No-one has forced the better off Europeans to have fewer kids. All I am doing is suggesting there is a lesson to be learned there.

So your solution would be to bring everyone's standard of living in the third world up to western standards, and when they're better off they'll have fewer kids. And just how do you propose …. eh no, on second thoughts, forget that! - I prefer to keep this debate in the realms of the realistic. This highly noble and idealised vision clearly contradicts your earlier approach of strictly limiting the population.

I disagree. YOu can't have industrialisation without consumer demand, but this is not quite the same as consumerism. Industrialism is a means to supply consumer needs just as much as it is a means to supply consumer wants. Consumerism centers on this latter aspect alone.

You can’t have industrialisation without increasing consumer demand. Reducing consumer demand, on the other hand results in the contraction of industry, or de-industrialisation. Industrialisation is a vector if you like, with both speed and direction. As I said previously, consumerism and industrialisation are inextricably linked.

kamana

bonkey wrote: »

I see. Its as simple as that, is it? You're right, I'm wrong. You won't offer explanations or justifications for your stance...merely tell me I'm wrong.

I guess open-minded discussion isn't what you wanted and see little point in us continuing this to-and-fro.

Living on this planet can be very easy. As I've said before, this planet can live without but we cannot live without it. Therefore what we do to the planet we do to ourselves.

Civilization can be defined as a way of life that is characterised by the growth of cities. Cities can be defined as a collection of people living in numbers large enough requiring the importation of resources.
How many cities do we have worldwide? Where do the resources come from? Civilization is not sustainable. Where does that leave us? What are our options? Consider the San bushmen of southern Africa. They practically evolved in place. That is sustainable.

kamana

kamana wrote: »

Civilization can be defined as a way of life that is characterised by the growth of cities. Cities can be defined as a collection of people living in numbers large enough requiring the importation of resources.
How many cities do we have worldwide? Where do the resources come from? Civilization is not sustainable. Where does that leave us? What are our options? Consider the San bushmen of southern Africa. They practically evolved in place. That is sustainable.

Civilisation in it's present form is not-sustainable but a civilised society can exist in a sustainable environment, it just needs to reduce consumerism right down to what is actually necessary to have a sustainable existance.

Modern industry and technology can be used in a sustainable way, it will need op-operation between nations.

for example: Sub-tropical (desert) countries can generate solar electricity, water can be piped from northern regions.
Populations in third world countries would be easily controlled by imporving the health of the people (healthy/wealthy countries have low birth rates).

Agriculture worldwide would need to produce the crops most suitable for the region, not "cash" crops like tobacco & other drugs.

Yes there IS a future but it will be very different to what we know it now. Most of the freedoms (wastefullness) we take for granted will not be possible.

McSandwich

Deleted User wrote: »

for example: Sub-tropical (desert) countries can generate solar electricity, water can be piped from northern regions.

or some of the solar generated electricity could be used to run desalination plants.

PaiDragon

Hello, i`ve being enjoying each of your contributions, quite a diverse range of opinions. Here is something interesting regarding sustainable living taking place in Britain.
Low-Impact Living


http://www.simondale.net/house/context.htm

AngryHippie

Deleted User wrote: »

Agriculture worldwide would need to produce the crops most suitable for the region, not "cash" crops like tobacco & other drugs.

Hemp is a cleaner source of fibres for paper production than timber....