The constant need for economic progress. Every excuse for everything is because we need to encourage economic progress. What happens when we have plundered the planet of all the natural resources, then economic progress will be finished and so will the planet. It does my nut in when I hear the same excuse, 'we can't be doing that, sure it might slow down or impede economic progress'. And over population isn't the problem when it comes to the need for resources it's greedy consumers with no conscience who needlessly buy loads of crap that is far from vital for survival. I'm not saying we should all go back and live in the forest and ditch all technology but technology and a proper natural environment could live side by side. We could easily provide food for the whole planet, see below. Natural Farming practice requires a minimum area of about 2,000 square feet per person to live on sustainably with a vegetarian diet. For reference, Biointensive Sustainable Mini-Farming practice, developed by John Jeavons, requires a minimum area of about 4,000 square feet per person to live on sustainably with a vegetarian diet. Permaculture Design practice, developed by Bill Mollison, requires a minimum area of about 6,000 square feet per person to live on sustainably with a predominately vegetarian diet. Modern conventional farming practice requires a minimum area of about 10,000 to 40,000 square feet per person to live on according to diet, vegetarian or meat eating, and is not sustainable. -------end rant. Guess who got out of the wrong side of bed this morning.
I agree that conspicuous consumption is a major factor but by how much we should reduce consumption is a very HEATED subject. And do not under-estimate the population effect. There are large populations of ppl that are increasing their standard of living and their level of consumption, the world's 2 most populous nations, India and China are increasing their per capita consumption, it is expected other nations will follow too. So I have to disagree with "over population isn't the problem when it comes to the need for resources" since I see China becoming just as big consumers as the US in the near future. A booming population, coupled with immigration and industrialization continues to introduce billions of ppl to a lifestyle not previously enjoyed by prior generations and they too will adopt high consumption levels. BTW, conventional farming is detrimental cos there’s so much of it to meet the population demands. The environment has a limited capacity to replenish itself, that is it can recover from a certain amount of human activity and human activity does have a direct correlation to numbers, ie. population. Consider this, the Earth can recover itself even at the currect level of Western consumption if the world population was a fraction of the current. And there are sacrifices to reducing consumption, esp. if one is attacking it from their diet. So how much do we reduce consumption? We can drastically reduce our consumption of natural resources by practicing the 3R's but to suggest that ppl adopt a vegetarian diet or predominately vegetarian diet is ALOT to ask for. China has increased their per capita meat intake over the years. Other nations would increase their meat intake if they had the means to. Let’s face it, we are omnivores, meat consumption is part of our evolution, sure we have the facilities that’ll allow us to adapt to a vegetarian diet but lets not under-value the role of meat consumption in human evolution, alot of ppl have a strong preference for meat. Espousing a vegetarian diet is a tough sell that environmentalists have been preaching for decades with no success. Some environmentalists, such as myself, though very well aware of the environmental impacts of meat still refuse to give it up. The path of most resistance is not effective, It’s a losing battle, good luck to you if u attempt to change ppl’s diet. There are also ppl with medical dietary requirements for a higher protein to carb ratio that can only be achieved with meat consumption. Yes nuts, legumes, tofu, although they are high in protein they are also high in carbs so a diet of these sans meat will still not achieve that ratio. The biggest environmental threat, I say consumption shares that title along with over-population. You tell me to give up meat when I see immigrant families with 5+ kids come to Canada and happily adopt our consumption habits. The biggest environmental threat is a shared responsibility, developed regions must reduce their per capita consumption and less developed regions must reduce their population growth.
as far as canada is concerned ,overpopulation isn't a problem here with 6 people per square mile ...........and as far as pollution ,the biggest polluteris not mechanization like the car or heating with fossil fuels ....it's something that most people would not even dream of ................it's COWS .......the methane gas they produce is by far more than anything else the world has thrown in
95% of the People on this planet are the biggest threat to the environment, the other 5% are the only ones that well be able to save it...
definately the combination of population over all, even if there are still a few fortunate places, who probably don't know how fortunate they are, not to be plagued by this, and the use of combustion to generate energy and transportation. (if human population levels were 1/20th or less, of what they are now, very few of even the worst things we do, would be that much of a problem. but planetary human population is what it is, and that much demand, and gratification of that demand, for cumbustion generated energy and transportation, is killing our world's ability to support us. litteraly.) =^^= .../\...
I agree, the growth economy requires ever larger inputs of energy and resources (lumber, metals, people, etc) and thus becomes more and more horrific. Though it is clear that without our huge petroleum/fossil fuel inputs our current population levels would be impossible, but even if it were, the impact of 6.5 billion people would not be NEARLY as bad if we didn't have to keep making the economy grow and grow every year. Because what that means is creating more and more wealth each year. Sounds good until you realize that all that new wealth is derived from natural resources that we generally mine from the earth. To mine a resource should bring to mind the idea of taking something from the earth, not returning it and not having it be renewable. Iron doesn't grow on trees. But trees themselves, if used unsustainably can be a nonrenewable resource (for an extreme example, check out Easter Island's history). Our growth economy model of living is akin to sitting on a tree-branch and sawing, at an ever increasing rate, the limb out from under you. Especially when you consider that all this growth is founded on energy resources, resources that are not sustainable or renewable. When we lived on direct solar energy (sunlight, wind, plants/grains created via photosynthesis), that was fine. But we're sucking out all this "ancient sunshine" known as fossil fuels which fueled our huge population growth. But they won't last forever. Economists treat energy as just another factor, but it is the foundational factor, unique in that way. Without energy, you have nothing. One of these days, we're going to be left with 6 billion people too many for the sun's direct energy to keep alive. If only we could switch to a sustainable lifestyle before that, use our minds and indominitable human spirit to overcome this problem now, on our terms, rather than wait for it to be forced on us. Because it is clear that within a few years, the oil and natural gas age will be over. Coal will hold on for far longer (still a lot of that left), but things are going to change very fast. It may be too late, but I think what whatever happens (no matter how horrific), the eventual outcome will be a better world. Too bad so many will likely need to die for us to get there. (I say this with full knowledge that, given the odds, I won't survive the die-off. Though, a man has to hope ).
