I know rite? Fuck those poor people, they don't know what they're missing.

Actually, they increasingly do know what they're missing... and want it. That's the problem. How do you provide 6,000,000,000 people with a lifestyle that only a minority has at present, when that minority already uses 90% of the available resources. We'll either all have to "live-down" to the level of, say, the average Indonesian, or find several more habitable planets to strip mine.

We aren't allowed to find another planet, remember? Unless we make some perfect species of blue cat people sad.

I think that we should consider that better technology tends to mean more efficient use of energy. Therefore, given time, we will reap "greater reward" from the same space. Not to mention, giving people rights and some free time tends to make them happier in the end than giving them televisions and cars--Before we can have luxuries, we need the most basic of basics.

That's not a problem, we have the capacity to give everybody what they need, and it'll either happen that way or in bloodshed. There's no real middle ground, you either choose the side of comfort, purposefully ignoring the rape of other cultures at the behest of your starbucks, or you get off your fat ass and ride a bike.

I don't *expect* happy times ahead. As a species I rather think we're going to screw up royally.

As things go, I've lead a rather green life. I have never owned a car, for instance -- wherever I go I've had to walk, ride a bike, or take public transit. I don't eat a lot of beef or exotic fresh vegetables all year 'round. I live in a small apartment. I don't bath often. Strike that last statement.

Maybe that's why I react so bitterly when I hear "Greens" exorthing me to make more environmentally aware choices -- I've been forced to live a modest lifestyle all my life and don't feel I deserve the blame that some other fatcats do.

Yes, more people from more facets of life should be working harder towards living in a cleaner world, especially if we insist on reproducing like rats.

While I understand that it might be easy to try and pin this on the rich and famous, it's the middle class who're responsible for most consumption. This is the burden of 'developed' worlds; a middle class that presumes a constant influx of resources. This forces first world countries to extort second and third world countries.

In a sense, being 'green' would entail a societal shift that allows for the country to support upward growth on it's own. This might also require technological advancement so far as energy production goes.

The middle class in the West probably does deserve most of the blame... as they have most of the numbers. And they have passively or enthusiastically embraced extremelty wasteful lifestyles. The suburb, for instance. It takes far more resources, and much more energy, to sustain a suburban community than it would to support the same number of people in an urban environment. While I understand the desire to live with plenty of green space around me, I don't have the luxury myself. I've also grown to appreciate the special appeal of urban living -- stores, trasnporetation, events, and excitement. As a kid I've lived in the suburbs and even dirt-road country... They appeal mainly to parents who crave a low-attention environment, and horse-lovers, as far as I can see. But if I owned a car, I would imagine I could adjust to an older, more developed suburb easily enough, so I don't altogether condemn them.

Some of the problems we face are caused by sheer inertia. Corporations don't want to invent in new technology or switch over to alternates. Customers are terrified that prices will go up. In the end, the status quo wins and the world rolls a little closer to the precipice that to most people is far less real than another $2,000 added to the price sticker of their next SUV.

Another of our problems comes from the notion of "growth." Nobody seems to want to face the idea that growth, at any rate, implies eventually using 100% in one last glorious burst of consumption -- after which nothing is left. We need to be looking at sustainable levels of economic activity that don't demand growth. Of course, that also implies we seek Zero Population Growth as well. But we're addicted to growth. People look at countries like Canada and say 30,000,000 people is not enough. We could easly put 100,000,000 people here. But I don't think we can. People standing shoulder to shoulder isn't the desireable goal -- dense populations may be supportable in places like Denmark or England, which have a high percentage of arable land, but a lot of North America is actually dry or mountainous, or has a subarctic climate not suited to support large populations. Canada is probably as populated as it ought to be, and further growth likley threatens our environment. I suspect the USA is already way overpopulated with over 300,000,000 people. It is, in fact, the third or fourth largest country in the world, population-wise. It has no potential for growth left.

Technological advances would certainl be welcome, but cannot be counted on. Scientific knowledged doesn't appear from nowhere, just because a government policy demands it. We also can't tell in advance what is or isn't possible. But I suspect science can solve many of our problems. It probably has solved our energy requirements, except that policy makers and investors don't want to employ the solutions. It would cut into the gross profits they've come to expect in the last 25 or 30 years. (Typically twice what investors expect in Europe or Asia.)

We are, at last, beginning to see some steps toward replacing the gasoline powered automobile. Hurrah! Of course, if the price of gas were to fall back to $40 a barrel for a couple of years, the consumer would probably forget all about hybreds and electrics and go back to hulking, gas-guzzling Hummer-clones.

I keep hearing, "My god, what will happen to the planet when those inconsiderate Chinese soon get up to our level of industrialization??"

Good, I say, then someone else can help worry about all those greenhouse gasses and starving children.

By the time the Chinese start to worry about it, it could be to be too late. But you know who really doesn't give a hoot? India.

Perhaps they figure that if you have *that* many gods, one of them is bound to clean up after us?

I've just heard that a few too many times. I think someone needs to find something more important to worry about than, "what about China?"

Especially when even plasticware is apparently made there it seems.

Not that many people ever seem to worry about what matters. They worry about who will win the World Cup or the Oscar instead, or really truly important things like whether Michael Jackson's doctor was guilty of malpractise. I'd sooner worry about global warming or oil spills, thanks.

Are they still worried about Michael Jackson? His clone won't be worried for another few years :)

a few words from some of the nutbars who get listened to,...

“A massive campaign must be launched to de-develop the United States. De-development means bringing our economic system into line with the realities of ecology and the world resource situation.”” — Paul Ehrlich, Professor of Population Studies

““The prospect of cheap fusion energy is the worst thing that could happen to the planet.”” — Jeremy Rifkin, Greenhouse Crisis Foundation

“The only hope for the world is to make sure there is not another United States. We can’t let other countries have the same number of cars, the amount of industrialization, we have in the US. We have to stop these Third World countries right where they are.”” — Michael Oppenheimer, Environmental Defense Fund

“Isn’t the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse? Isn’t it our responsibility to bring that about?”” — Maurice Strong, founder of the UN Environment Programme

And My Personal fave....

“Global sustainability requires the deliberate quest of poverty, reduced resource consumption and set levels of mortality control.”” — Professor Maurice King

make of it what you will, oh don't worry, i've got a few more of these little gems.

--Rick

A prize list of craziness alright. Recently some government fatcat from India said that the West would have to get over the sense of entitlement it has for luxuries like old age pensions, universal health care, and upward mobillity. I'm beginning to think its time to return to our traditional attitudes of contempt for other cultures...

Sounds like that "fatcat" should get over his own sense of entitlement, first. I'm willing to bet he doesn't have to worry about healthcare, retirement or upward mobility (especially in a country where caste still plays an important role in the social order).

The only culture we should really have contempt for is the culture of greed and contempt expressed by the above fatcat from India. More to the point, it's not the Indians who deserve our contempt, but the fatcats of every nation.

Developing a solid class consciousness might be a good start. But given that said fatcats are also in control of the media, politics and the education system, I'm not terribly hopeful that will happen any time soon.

then there is the old "empiralism'' of grabbing country's that piss us off, but we see how well *THAT* has worked of late like the old motto
"Make America a Man again invade abroad" :P

--Rick

I'm still more worried about the right-wing christians than I am of the tree huggers. On my way to work every day I routinely pass 3 or 4 anti-this and anti-that billboards (exact number depends on what route I take). Billboards around here cost $1800 to $2000 per month. These billboards have been there for at least seven years. On that same daily drive I also pass a fundy mega-church that had a $15,000,000 renovation last year.

With just a little more driving, I can usually locate at least one "sponsored" demonstration somewhere in town (there are a couple of areas they prefer to gather at) with their professionally printed "God Hates Fags" and "Save a Life: Kill an Abortionist" signs. The large, shiny, new church vans which gathered up the protesters and delivered them to the site are usually parked nearby.

This is just in my town. I see the same things in other nearby towns, and in far-away towns... Basically, everywhere throughout the South (USA).

Money equals power. Those nut-jobs have way too much money!

Greenpeace only owns a couple of second-hand tramp freighters. When they can afford a brand new fleet as big as the US Navy, then I'll worry about them as much as I do the church nazis.

Tree Huggers are a minor worry to me. The Fundies are a big worry. If they have their way, the US will become the 21st. century's Russia -- bit, lumbering, overdeveloped muscles, too little brain, backward, unliked, impossible to ignore.

Hmm. A lot of the above article needs clarification, or even better, it ought to be three or four articles, to bash people's heads into the idea.
I HAVE lived in a Green Environment--and I must agree that to some extent, I LIKE living in a country where electrical power is not rationed, television is not a luxury, and the Internet is not considered "sorcery". I'm sure anyone who recently moved out of the poor regions of Africa, Asia, and South America can say the same.

I think that the most important factors in protecting our environment is human rights, economic growth, and education. The protection of basic human rights means women and all tribes of men are released from their prisons and allowed to work. Not only does this reduce the population problem, but it essentially doubles the workforce of many nations, allowing them some stability economically. Economic growth encourages exploration and a more relaxed society, that spends somewhat less time worrying about work, and more time worrying about life, because improved living conditions GIVE people a lot of time and a lot of freedom--and free time away from the factory means less pollution. Finally, education, and in particular education about ecology, would give people a better understanding of what pollution our world can handle, and what pollution we should avoid. Yes, there are natural cycles we can take advantage of, to dispose of at least SOME of our waste, that do NOT depend upon the local Green Grocer's.
In essence, I think our society, instead of going to the Stone Age, should consider what MADE the Stone Age so successful and Green. It was the fact that both women and men, of all races and beliefs, worked for their food, on somewhat equal terms. It was the fact that Stone Age peoples valued free time, however little they had of it, and spent it creating works of art, religious ceremonies, etc, rather than attempting to bravely work themselves to death. Lastly, it was the fact that a "cave man" is essentially a human being who takes advantage of nature, because of his KNOWLEDGE. Stone Age peoples were successful because they ate everything they could, and found ways of using their waste for something, such as making clothing and jewelry out of dead animals after they become inedible, while putting what they simply could NOT use back into the cycles of our world.
If the above are parts of a successful strategy for expanding our influence from Africa to the whole world, they should be good at keeping us on top. We should not turn back the clock, but consider what made our ancestors so "good" at protecting their environment. I'd argue it was not our poverty or our primitive nature that kept us "in tune with the Earth", because I know how much your ancestors HATED the Earth. The Earth is an enemy, a thing to be hunted and abused until it produces something useful, for a stupid peasant. It is a free, happy, and wise person who thinks about Mother Nature.
Long live the City of Tomorrow.
(The above is, of course, the product of several minutes' thought, and likely nowhere near a good solution, but since you mentioned rapid population growth and poverty as problems, I felt I should share what I learned from living in a community where these were normal. I do not believe we should be moving backwards, but should instead consider making our world more like the future our parents and their parents imagined.)

It was only meant as a short article, the object humour (though a cynical, snarky sort) more than a well reasoned thesis. Not that I don't stand behind much of what I said -- I do. But I'm not quite as hard hearted as I may sound. I want everyone to have the same lifestyle as Bill Gates. Especially ME. But I despair because I don't know if eveyone in the world can even ejoy MY standard of living. The attempt may use up our resources and poison the planet irreparably in my own lifetime. ...and I'm not young.

Humans rights are maybe the only real issue we face. I've slowly come to a realization that the ideological split between Left and Right, Capitalism and Communism, is so much bullshit. Communism practised in Marxist countries have failed because of the massive violations of human rights they routinely practiced. No mistake could be corrected, no fool or scoundrel could be turned out of office, no public action was possible because they were forbidden to even know how they were governed. America and the West are far more open socieites than that... but there are still autocratic and aristocratic tendancies. How much do we really control our democracies anymore? How much did we in the past? I suspect that an educated and democratic society would not passivly drift into economic disasters like this last one, emanating from Wall Street's greed mills. What, more than anything, we need is more control over our lives. WE should decide what property is, how it is to change hands, to be used, and whether it is in our best interest to administer it privately or publically. I don't want ebola virus in the hands of White Supremacists in Colorado, nor do I want the state to own my television set. But just how much and what kind of intervention in our lives by public action (another way of saying government) should be up to us rather than ideologues who see everything in black and white. I feel no more free if McDonalds' owns the world than if the State does. Nor do I trust McDonalds more than the White House or #10 Downing Street.

What made the Stone Age work so well was just that there were so few of us living then, I'm afraid. Most Stone Age practises -- like pissing in the river or throwing your food scraps outside the lean-to -- had to be abandoned when populations grew too large. Things that bronze age men could do, had to be abandoned in the Middle Ages. And things you could do in medieval times are far too lax for the modern age. All the same, I approve of returning to the Stone Age in a sense. If there were only 100,000,000 of us, we could use all the energy we want, waste everything, throw our garbage into the ocean and be done with it. With such low numbers it would probably not matter.

What I've noticed is that some people are in tune with the Earth, some people are at odds with it, most are too busy and just ignore it except at statutory times like Christmas or Ramadan when they're expected to think about metaphysical things. Even then they're distracted by presents, parades, feasts, and visiting relatives. That's probably always been true of all nations.

Actually, food scraps are very useful things! Bait, food for the dog/pig/rat, and finally simple fertilization of the earth. This is what I mean by natural cycles--Our ancestors took full advantage of what little they knew of their natural world, such as that their waste, when left in a particular place, tended to help useful plants grow. That started us on the path to farming, warfare, and progress as a means of survival. We tend to act like WE are the most important and useful thing on Earth, and only we can take care of nature. For the most part, Mother Nature takes care of herself--we only need to make adjustments to keep ourselves from poisoning it outright, such as knowing HOW to dispose of certain waste, not destroy every form of pollution in the hope we can keep Earth "pure" on our own.

Another problem I see is that you consider our resources finite or if they are renewable, limited. This may be true to some extent, but through technological progress, we've become more efficient (just look at your average car, from Model T to the Jeep Grand Cherokee), and steadily, we get more energy out of less resources, all the while discovering ways to use just one thing more. For an example of how we can get several planets worth of energy, look at sunlight, and if you are interested in its source, nuclear energy. These resources ARE available today, and I do not doubt there are other, better ways to power our human world, waiting for the right discovery to make them apparent.

I do not know if I will see mankind become post-scarcity, or even post-poverty, but I do see evidence that advances in our society and technology will make people better off--people who work in factories do not starve in a drought, do not die of the common cold, and know just a bit more of pleasure and civilization, things that were once the sole property of kings and nobles. Similarly, Mother Nature is better off, even NOW, than during the Industrial Revolution, and given time, it will be better still, as our society becomes stable in its growth.

All change is bad in Nature, but stagnation and regress are worse.

I'll endorse your last statement.

The "Chinese" model of farming is one of the most efficient on Earth. It uses different species to process each other's wastes and turn it into something useful. On the other hand, most of the big plagues have developed in China, where pathogens have jumped from one species to another on Chinese farms, because of the close proximity and high population densities of the species. That degree of interdependence contains mutual vulnerabilities.

I certainly favour efficiency. We must also find ways to running our economies by making sensible choices. Using palm oils in our foods, for instance, is a bad choice. Palm oils seem to have a bad effect on our health, and distorts economies that grow to depend on palm oil exports. Burning oil is another poor choice we make -- some calculations suggest that alternate energy sources are capable of providing or *all* our energy needs. But vested interests hold us back.

The future isn't necessarily going to be bleak. I just think that if we go on being led by oil companies, political ideologues, religious fanatics, financial manipulators, and other entrenched interests, we are not going to make the changes necessary for the survival of our high-tech civilization.

I try to help but the New World Order is obviously a big empire of lies and love to have slaves... oh well you know what they say (even on of my national's history heroes, Agustin Iturbide said) "If you can't with the enemy, join them" XD

Actually, he probably said something to that effect in Spanish.

; )

mm I dont know xD he was the general of the Spainiards when Mexico was the colony of Spain during the independence xD he battled the insurrection but he finally joined the insurrection xD so it was obviously the real beginning of the end of the Spanish's colony on Mexico xD

I can keep both the fundies and these 'de-evoutionary" idiots!

I shall orchestrate the GREAT LEAP BACKWARDS!

The idea here is to totally medievalise society. Bring everyone back to the soil, where they live in small manorial communities united by imaginary clan ties I shallpersonally invent for them all. Each community will produce a very slight overage ingoods, which they may trade with one anoth at amusing little fairs - which will be used to create both a sense of communal unity and healthy civic pride.

To orchestrate this, it will require that the OVERLORD (me), assumes a mythical role not only as leader, but as goadhead. Since my edicts will effectively be holy edicts, the fundies will be totally happy and fulfilled.

The OVERLORD an his chosen few will, of course, retain the only modern weapns on the planet. This will obviously ensure an eternal and blissful peace. Those who rock the boat will be atomised by cruise missiles.


This must all be done by a series of five year plans. The sooner we embrace it, the happier i think everyone will be.

Except that the term is only four years, that sounds much like the Presidency...

Did I mention there will be dancing girls given to select artists as reward for long and valiant service?

See, this is why I have TWO .45ACPs. To hold off the treehuggers when they come for my dishwasher.

I think all you need to scare away knee-jerk Greens is a cross made from two girders from a Mechano set. Or a functional flashlight. Technology confuses and frightens them. Save the gunpower for the White Supremacists, Men in Black and Red Necks... they LIKE guns and respect them.

I think all you need to scare away knee-jerk Greens is a cross made from two girders from a Mechano set. Or a functional flashlight.

You should totally draw this one up.

Naw... I'm not that down on the Greens that I need to add my weight against them. By *comparison* with Tea Pariers, Red Necks, Republicans, Neocons, Fundies, the NRA and Deniers of various sorts, I'm on *their* side.