[andyt]

We certainly need growth just to keep up with population growth.

Also, we'd need a major re-organization of our economic system to go with a no growth model - currently it's a reason for panic. Maybe Lemmy can extemporize what such a system would look like, my guess is it would involve more government intervention.

[DrCaleb]

andyt andyt:

We certainly need growth just to keep up with population growth.

But growth for the sake of growth we don't need. Such a system is unsustainable in a closed environment. Consumption will ultimately exceed our ability to find and transform raw materials. Malthus was right about that, if a little off on the timing.

[andyt]

And as long as we have positive population growth, that's where we're headed. We're already using at least 2x the earth's resources to be sustainable, and that's only going to increase. Basically that seems to indicate we'd have to cut our economies in half at current state to be sustainable. More in the developed countries.

[DrCaleb]

andyt andyt:

And as long as we have positive population growth, that's where we're headed. We're already using at least 2x the earth's resources to be sustainable, and that's only going to increase. Basically that seems to indicate we'd have to cut our economies in half at current state to be sustainable. More in the developed countries.

Yup. So we either have to flatten out population growth, find better ways to sustain that growth, and/or find better ways to re-use the things we already have.

It's funny that a staple of the first world, the landfill, is hardly seen in developing countries. Even a garbage can is a rarity.

[andyt]

We have to kill half the world's population if we want to consume at current levels and remain sustainable, never mind flattening out pop growth. Even with the greenest of green economies, 7 billion is just too much.

I used the ecological footprint calculator. I came in at 2.something, and I'm pretty green compared to the average Canadian. I then pretended I was a Bangladeshi living in a mud hut burning wood for fuel, living off the grid and on the land. I think the earth could have sustained 600 billion people in that way, according to the calculator. But of course it wouldn't work, there's no room for all those people, we'd have no trees left in short order, and so on. Us trying to live in some old timey, natural way would also mean we couldn't support the people we have on the planet now.

Interestingly enough, we passed the point of too many people shortly after I was born.

[Lemmy]

andyt andyt:

We certainly need growth just to keep up with population growth.

Also, we'd need a major re-organization of our economic system to go with a no growth model - currently it's a reason for panic. Maybe Lemmy can extemporize what such a system would look like, my guess is it would involve more government intervention.

I haven't really thought of it beyond the basic notion that consumer culture is a lie. People aren't fundamentally happier now than they were 60 years ago, despite the growth in GDP/capita. We economics teachers are maybe as much at fault as the corporations and their marketing Frankensteins. We teach that economic growth is a fundamental goal of economic policy. But a 4000 sq ft home doesn't make someone happier than a 2000 sq ft home. Those debt financed trips to the mall don't make people happier. We need to learn, as a society, that happiness isn't derived from consumption.

We need to learn sustainability. We need to learn that it makes no sense to burn fuel to combine corn to ship to Japan to feed Wagyu cattle, then burn more fuel shipping the Kobe beef back. We've gotten to a point where the energy (calories) that goes into producing and shipping our food exceeds the calories we get FROM the food. How long would the coyote live if he spent more energy chasing down the roadrunner than he got from eating it?

But I don't know, andy. I don't know how we get people to smarten up. Maybe capitalistic innovation will save us and come up with the solution. There's no question that capitalist innovation (and cheap energy) have fueled the incredible economic growth of the past 2 centuries. But that same human ingenuity needs to recognize that it's not sustainable. It's funny (sad funny, not "Ha-ha" funny) that the people who place their faith in the belief that "capitalism's incentives will save us" are the same people who deny the very science that technological innovation is founded upon.

[andyt]

It depends on the lens you look thru - we're not happier with 4000 sq foot homes vs 2000, but are we happier vs log houses? We're certainly better off physically. But a reason I go on about income inequality is the destructive effect it has on a civil society. We're a lot happier when we are connected with one another rather that feel like we're at war with one another. It's why psychological distress and crime actually goes down in war - the society is pulling together even as material wealth declines. Seems we need an outside enemy to pull us together, otherwise we turn on each other.

Capitalism is based on greed, that's why it's been so successful, it harnesses a deep human drive. Unless you can find a way to make altruistic behavior satisfy that greed, I don't see capitalism as the way. Possibly tho if we were able to make altruistic behavior confer so much more status than acquiring wealth. Such as the drought shaming going on in CA, where some people are competing with who can have the most environmentally correct yard instead.

But the impacts of climate change and resource depletion are so slow. my guess is we're just going to keep on keeping on, like the frog in water that is slowly raised to the boiling point. Bring on the alien invasion.

[Zipperfish]

N_Fiddledog N_Fiddledog:

But here's what I'll never understand. You actually know better. You're Lombergian -Adaptation over mitigation. Why are you always trying to sneak those little "Oh my God. Disaster. You're all gonna die. It's science," quips in? Even if you could convince some poor sucker the world is going to boil to death, what would you get out of it?

I think you're putting words in my mouth. I don't think I've ever posted anything like that. Climate change having already cost several billion dollars is not on par with "Armageddon's here!"

I suppose there is a risk of a runaway greenhouse effect, but I don't think it's quite low. Global warming is more likely to just exacerbate many of our existing issues--poverty, war, energy, resource depletion, etc.

However, I will stick by the prediction that we're all going to die. I'm hoping an exception will be made in my case, but it doesn't seem likely.

[Zipperfish]

Lemmy Lemmy:

I haven't really thought of it beyond the basic notion that consumer culture is a lie. People aren't fundamentally happier now than they were 60 years ago, despite the growth in GDP/capita. We economics teachers are maybe as much at fault as the corporations and their marketing Frankensteins. We teach that economic growth is a fundamental goal of economic policy. But a 4000 sq ft home doesn't make someone happier than a 2000 sq ft home. Those debt financed trips to the mall don't make people happier. We need to learn, as a society, that happiness isn't derived from consumption.

We need to learn sustainability. We need to learn that it makes no sense to burn fuel to combine corn to ship to Japan to feed Wagyu cattle, then burn more fuel shipping the Kobe beef back. We've gotten to a point where the energy (calories) that goes into producing and shipping our food exceeds the calories we get FROM the food. How long would the coyote live if he spent more energy chasing down the roadrunner than he got from eating it?

But I don't know, andy. I don't know how we get people to smarten up. Maybe capitalistic innovation will save us and come up with the solution. There's no question that capitalist innovation (and cheap energy) have fueled the incredible economic growth of the past 2 centuries. But that same human ingenuity needs to recognize that it's not sustainable. It's funny (sad funny, not "Ha-ha" funny) that the people who place their faith in the belief that "capitalism's incentives will save us" are the same people who deny the very science that technological innovation is founded upon.

The cities are catching on. Sustainability is actually becoming internalized to an extent there. That's a good sign because, despite the fact that municiap elections usually have execrable turnouts, they are the government closest to the people.

They've discovered that just building more roads isn't going to solve congestion problems. Fringe ideas like community gardens, and even keeping chickens, are becoming more mainstream. Local markets are very successful in the lower mainland right now.

So there's hope there, and that's where you should start, in my opinion.

[andyt]

Yet the transit referendum will likely be defeated. Actually I'm still not sure how I'll vote, since I think this is a bs move by Crispie Clark. How have/will you vote?

[Zipperfish]

andyt andyt:

Yet the transit referendum will likely be defeated. Actually I'm still not sure how I'll vote, since I think this is a bs move by Crispie Clark. How have/will you vote?

The Transit Referendum was a shell game by Christie Clark. Just about any referendum that involves increasing taxes will fail, and the provincial government was well aware of that.

I voted yes.

[andyt]

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

Just about any referendum that involves increasing taxes will fail

Which is why I'm not sure I share your optimism about cities leading the way. Sure, little things like gardens and chickens, by a minority of the population. Hell, more people probably use their bikes as their main transportation. But the masses won't want to spend any money, and that's what it takes to really start making some progress. Probably, again, as with poverty, save money down the road, but needs an upfront investment.

[Zipperfish]

andyt andyt:

Which is why I'm not sure I share your optimism about cities leading the way. Sure, little things like gardens and chickens, by a minority of the population. Hell, more people probably use their bikes as their main transportation. But the masses won't want to spend any money, and that's what it takes to really start making some progress. Probably, again, as with poverty, save money down the road, but needs an upfront investment.

Your lack of optimism is probably more systemic as opposed to issue-based. Optimism always applies, in my humble opinion.

It starts with a minority. First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win. Ignorant people don't want to spend money. These people are ignorant because they are kept ignorant by governments and corporations and, of course, by themselves. They don't really want to know that our entire meat culture is based on appalling animal cruelty, or that the vast majority of goods we consume is manufactured in conditions we would consider slave labour in Canada. Everyone is complicit in that sad little game. By the t-shirt at 1/3 the price at Walmart and then skip the PBS documentary on working conditions in Bangladesh.

Like my friend used to say, "It's not a conspiracy theory, it's a complicity theory."