Consumerism vs sustainability [Archive]

Hitcher

30th January 2008, 16:03

Blackbird

30th January 2008, 16:33

This may relate to the US rather than New Zealand, but it still gives pause for thought about the legacy we are creating for future generations.

• Rage against waste and want.
• Just enough is plenty.
• Reject the limits of division and self interest.
• Seek freedom. Freedom from greed and from poverty, freedom to learn, freedom to share, freedom to wonder.
• Connect. Our capacity for supporting one another is humanity’s defining virtue.
• Draw strength from unity. Alone we are precious, together we are powerful.
• Take control. We are what we do.

Mmmmmm..... sounds like the communist manifesto:yes:

Finn

30th January 2008, 16:36

Wasn't there a movement in the 70's that advocated similar?

tri boy

30th January 2008, 16:39

But wasn't it "El Presidante" G W Bush, who said America needs to continue doing what it does best.........Consume:eek5:
Humans are greedy f**kers by nature, so no matter what the small percentage of decent folk do, the masses will consume like locusts until theres not much left, and the mighty cockroach will rise to power.:not:

Big Dave

30th January 2008, 16:52

I *like* being precious.

Big Dave

30th January 2008, 16:54

Wasn't there a movement in the 70's that advocated similar?

Willy G Davidson and the Harley AMF buy-back?

Steam

30th January 2008, 18:21

• Rage against waste and want.
• Just enough is plenty.

It's all a bit wiffly waffly, hippy, but those two above are vital for our survival, in a world with an exploding population and limited resources.

jrandom

30th January 2008, 18:28

a world with an exploding population...

<img src="http://www.zombietime.com/justice_matters/child_suicide_bomber.jpg"/>

Finn

30th January 2008, 18:30

<img src="http://www.zombietime.com/justice_matters/child_suicide_bomber.jpg"/>

Isn't it incredible how young kids blow up these days.

Big Dave

30th January 2008, 19:47

Isn't it incredible how young kids blow up these days.

Spooky.

http://www.badweatherbikers.com/buell/messages/4062/333621.html?1201676770

davereid

30th January 2008, 20:38

Cruisin' Craig

30th January 2008, 20:52

Sustainability... hmm sounds like a great idea.

Except I can't think of anything we have actually ever run-out of !

Looks like everything is sustainable, as long as we have to pay the realprice of using it.

We haven't run out of anything yet, so obviously we never will right?
We have a finite world and we are exponentially increasing the rate at which we use our resources. It's a pretty simple equation!

I'll accept your second point though, as you long we realise that the "real price" could be a hell of a lot more than just dollars.

davereid

30th January 2008, 21:17

We haven't run out of anything yet, so obviously we never will right?
We have a finite world and we are exponentially increasing the rate at which we use our resources. It's a pretty simple equation!

I'll accept your second point though, as you long we realise that the "real price" could be a hell of a lot more than just dollars.

Yeah pretty much. We never run out of anything, because as it gets scarce, it gets expensive, so we just use something else.

It will always be the way, unless the cost of the product is distorted by government.

The "real cost" thing ? I guess the best example is nuclear power. Kyoto makes oil and coal seem expensive.

So Nuclear seems cheap, as Kyoto has distorted real cost.

So in order to protect future generations from (the debateable) effects of global warming, we are now building lots of nukes.

Maybe future generation will benefit from our reduced reliance on coal and oil, but hate us for plutonium.

Cruisin' Craig

30th January 2008, 21:24

Yeah pretty much. We never run out of anything, because as it gets scarce, it gets expensive, so we just use something else.

It will always be the way, unless the cost of the product is distorted by government.

The "real cost" thing ? I guess the best example is nuclear power. Kyoto makes oil and coal seem expensive.

So Nuclear seems cheap, as Kyoto has distorted real cost.

So in order to protect future generations from (the debateable) effects of global warming, we are now building lots of nukes.

Maybe future generation will benefit from our reduced reliance on coal and oil, but hate us for plutonium.

That's logical. But unfortunately I don't believe the world is always as simple as that.

Sometimes it's possible to go past "tipping points" where irreversible damage is done.

Hitcher

30th January 2008, 21:26

So Nuclear seems cheap, as Kyoto has distorted real cost.

Kyoto hasn't distorted the real cost. Indeed it is questionable whether the pump price (or equivalent) for fossil fuels even with the current Kyoto-related carbon charges, fully includes all of the externalities that should be associated with the use of such fuels. It's a bit like flicking cigarette butts away after your last drag. The smoker doesn't give a fuck about what happens to them or what damage they cause. That has been the case, until recently, for users of fossil fuels. Whether one "believes" in climate change/global warming as a consequence of human activity or not, everything we do whilst we live on this planet has consequences -- both for ourselves and future generations. There are nearly 6 billion of us humans alive -- more than have ever lived (that fucks up people who believe in reincarnation, but I digress). Wake up and smell the coffee.

Bikernereid

30th January 2008, 21:36

Really love it, very clever and poignant.

Badjelly

31st January 2008, 09:06

• Just enough is plenty.

As exemplified by your FJR1300T?

Sorry, cheap shot, couldn't help it.

Hitcher

31st January 2008, 09:22

As exemplified by your FJR1300T?

Indeed. Anything more would be flagrantly wasteful.

Pwalo

31st January 2008, 09:38

This may relate to the US rather than New Zealand, but it still gives pause for thought about the legacy we are creating for future generations.

http://www.chrisjordan.com/current_set2.php?id=7

• Rage against waste and want.
• Just enough is plenty.
• Reject the limits of division and self interest.
• Seek freedom. Freedom from greed and from poverty, freedom to learn, freedom to share, freedom to wonder.
• Connect. Our capacity for supporting one another is humanity’s defining virtue.
• Draw strength from unity. Alone we are precious, together we are powerful.
• Take control. We are what we do.

Nice sentiments, but like most poitical statements it makes the assumption that consumerism and sustainability must be mutually exclusive, and that 'Freedom' will save us all.

I certainly agree that we could all do with making the most of what we have, but I also think that a bit of self interest, and difference is a jolly good thing.

Sorry old chum, it just sounds a bit trite, and post-hippy hand wringing.

Usarka

31st January 2008, 10:00

i put a whole uneaten lamb chop in the bin last night.

Ixion

31st January 2008, 10:12

My great-great-grandmother used to say in such cases "They who will in wilful waste indulge, woeful want must know". Then fetch the culprit an almighty whack with her stick. Consider yourself great-great-grandmothered.

Blackbird

31st January 2008, 10:20

All piss-taking aside Brett, it is an issue which our children and grandchildren are going to have to deal with - what a terrible legacy we've left them!

Through my work, I'm heavily involved with sustainability issues surrounding forest-based products i.e, pulp, paper sawn timber etc. NZ is pretty much unique in having such a high proportion of renewable plantation-grown wood at its disposal. In 2002, the European Union alone imported the equivalent of over 83 milllion tonnes of illegally logged wood from around the world. The social impact from this level of rape and pillage is appalling. Fortunately, some end users are now specifying traceable evidence of source prior to purchase. Let's just hope this increased social responsibility spreads to other areas.

007XX

31st January 2008, 10:20

• Connect. Our capacity for supporting one another is humanity’s defining virtue.
• Draw strength from unity. Alone we are precious, together we are powerful.
• Take control. We are what we do.

These points are the ones who get to me the most I have to admit...

The fact that we are in a society where people care less and less for each other terrifies me.

Or care even less about the fact that they have the power to make a difference but are too lazy to do so.

To me, a good representation of this was this movie. Call it sensationalism or whatever, I don't care...But the message was clear. I wonder how many people actually gave a crap after seeing it?

Beemer

31st January 2008, 11:01

Sustainability... hmm sounds like a great idea.

Except I can't think of anything we have actually ever run-out of !

Looks like everything is sustainable, as long as we have to pay the real price of using it.

What about water, which is tipped to be as precious as gold in coming years?

I've just done a couple of articles about sustainability in early childhood teaching - not only teaching kids about it but also practising what they preach in terms of reducing waste, recycling, etc. One woman I interviewed was talking about water play being an integral part of the early childhood curriculum and how a Somalian family had been horrified to see children playing with and wasting water when for them it was a precious resource.

Whether you believe in climate change and global warming or not, running out of resources will affect all of us and maybe even in our lifetimes, so it's worth taking an interest in. Already they are finding overseas that a lot of land is being given over to growing crops for biofuel that it's limiting the amount of food that can be produced in some areas. And look at the effect of drought on Australia and parts of NZ.

I compost food scraps and recycle glass and plastic, etc, and I am already looking at ways to reduce the things I *need* - for instance I use vinegar for cleaning windows and as a rinse in the dishwasher - works a treat and it's cheap as too! Years ago our ancestors didn't use 20 different products for cleaning their home, they used soap, baking soda and vinegar. And their houses were probably cleaner and smelled better that those of today's generation.

And 007XX is right - sustainability isn't just about reducing waste, it's about finding better ways of doing things to ensure sustainability in the future - AND it's about caring for others as well as the land. Education for sustainability (EfS) is an emerging concept with its roots in the environmental education movement, although with a broader scope. It encourages people to connect with, and care for, others and the environment in which they live. This quote about EfS came from UNESCO in 2005 - “... encompasses a new vision of education that seeks to empower people of all ages to assume responsibility for creating a sustainable future.”

Pwalo

31st January 2008, 12:19

What about water, which is tipped to be as precious as gold in coming years?

I've just done a couple of articles about sustainability in early childhood teaching - not only teaching kids about it but also practising what they preach in terms of reducing waste, recycling, etc. One woman I interviewed was talking about water play being an integral part of the early childhood curriculum and how a Somalian family had been horrified to see children playing with and wasting water when for them it was a precious resource.

Whether you believe in climate change and global warming or not, running out of resources will affect all of us and maybe even in our lifetimes, so it's worth taking an interest in. Already they are finding overseas that a lot of land is being given over to growing crops for biofuel that it's limiting the amount of food that can be produced in some areas. And look at the effect of drought on Australia and parts of NZ.

I compost food scraps and recycle glass and plastic, etc, and I am already looking at ways to reduce the things I *need* - for instance I use vinegar for cleaning windows and as a rinse in the dishwasher - works a treat and it's cheap as too! Years ago our ancestors didn't use 20 different products for cleaning their home, they used soap, baking soda and vinegar. And their houses were probably cleaner and smelled better that those of today's generation.

And 007XX is right - sustainability isn't just about reducing waste, it's about finding better ways of doing things to ensure sustainability in the future - AND it's about caring for others as well as the land. Education for sustainability (EfS) is an emerging concept with its roots in the environmental education movement, although with a broader scope. It encourages people to connect with, and care for, others and the environment in which they live. This quote about EfS came from UNESCO in 2005 - “... encompasses a new vision of education that seeks to empower people of all ages to assume responsibility for creating a sustainable future.”

These are all noble and admirable sentiments, but they are no more than what our parents, grandparents did wrapped up with a bit of PC whimsy.

I totally agree with reducing waste, and making the most of what you have available, but I'm afraid that in order to survive we must consume resources; be it food, shelter or energy.

Besides I reckon we're all just salving our consciences as we work on our PCs, ride our bikes, etc.

No I don't worry about my children's or their children's world. The human race is pretty damned smart (well perhaps cunning), and I'd hate to think that my decisions stopped them from future developments, or ideas. In fact that what frustates me about this whole thread. We can't go back, like it or not.

Enough of my bollocks, but I think you guys need to lighten up a bit. Mankind has always lived on the edge of disaster so it's just situation normal.

Hitcher

31st January 2008, 12:34

Beemer

31st January 2008, 12:43

These are all noble and admirable sentiments, but they are no more than what our parents, grandparents did wrapped up with a bit of PC whimsy...

...No I don't worry about my children's or their children's world. The human race is pretty damned smart (well perhaps cunning), and I'd hate to think that my decisions stopped them from future developments, or ideas. In fact that what frustates me about this whole thread. We can't go back, like it or not.

Enough of my bollocks, but I think you guys need to lighten up a bit. Mankind has always lived on the edge of disaster so it's just situation normal.

Wow, mankind may be smart and cunning, but we're not going to get far with that attitude. Development is one thing, sustainable development is another. I'm all for progression and I would hate to live in a house without power and running water, but I'm not prepared to live my life regardless of the consequences.

Thankfully there is a growing number of people who are prepared to work towards solutions that will be sustainable for all of us. God help us if we all carried on with the "I'm all right Jack" attitude that has got us into the shit on many occasions!

Finn

31st January 2008, 12:47

Trouble is, if everybody stopped buying "one better than the Jones", we'd all be homeless and eating our own snot.

Pwalo

31st January 2008, 13:05

Wow, mankind may be smart and cunning, but we're not going to get far with that attitude. Development is one thing, sustainable development is another. I'm all for progression and I would hate to live in a house without power and running water, but I'm not prepared to live my life regardless of the consequences.

Thankfully there is a growing number of people who are prepared to work towards solutions that will be sustainable for all of us. God help us if we all carried on with the "I'm all right Jack" attitude that has got us into the shit on many occasions!

I don't believe I said "I'll be right Jack" anywhere. I stand by my reasoning that we must be careful not put too may restraints on the way that future generations can act, or think.

I'd hate to think that everyone had to think the same way that I did.

And I don't understand your comment about the shit.

Beemer

31st January 2008, 13:24

I don't believe I said "I'll be right Jack" anywhere. I stand by my reasoning that we must be careful not put too may restraints on the way that future generations can act, or think.

I'd hate to think that everyone had to think the same way that I did.

And I don't understand your comment about the shit.

I can't see anywhere in my post where I said YOU personally had said "I'll be right Jack" - it was meant to imply that many people tend to not worry about anyone else as long as their life was okay.

As for the comment about shit - people were warned about global warming and climate change years ago but either didn't believe it or didn't think it would affect them. I'd say that even the majority of the doubters would now accept the world is changing and not necessarily for the better either. Unsustainable practices are just that - they cannot go on for ever without severely affecting other areas such as water supplies, energy supplies, erosion of land, etc.

Ixion

31st January 2008, 13:44

Sustainability isn't about "going backwards", unless you're a member of the Green Party.

One of the better definitions of "sustainability" is "the ability to meet the needs of today's people and environment without compromising that of subsequent generations".

It's about being thoughtful and sensible, not about fearmongering dogma.

Hm. So, really our forbears should not have cut down the great oak forests that covered almost the whole of England. Or, later, dug up the iron ore or coal that fuelled the Industrial Revolution.

I think that , had our forbears been guided by those constraints, we would live in a very different, but not better world. And almost all of us would be peasnat farmers . Actually , none of us would be here, since the ships that Cook and co used required cutting down those forests.Hm, we wouldn't be peasnat farmers either , even if our ancestors got here, because they wouldn't have been able to cut down the bush and kauri forest, so no farmland in NZ.

Blackbird

31st January 2008, 14:07

The difference between "then" and "now" being the rate of depletion of resources due to world population and other factors. I don't think anyone could reasonably ask for a return to a less developed/pleasant way of life unless it was a matter of absolute survival.

I'm a great believer in crises driving problem-solving as evidenced by recent major conflicts etc so there will be a continuous evolution of innovation, just as there always has been. Solutions which are currently uneconomic suddenly become more economic as other costs increase.

It's just that the rate of innovation might just have to accellerate more than a little! National boundaries and self-interest may also have to be more flexible in the interests of the wider good. Sometimes, living on an island country in the middle of nowhere seems a smart move :niceone:

Cruisin' Craig

31st January 2008, 14:17

Actually , none of us would be here, since the ships that Cook and co used required cutting down those forests.

Who said there was a problem with cutting down trees? There's no problem with that at all.
It just needs to be done in a sustainable way.
i.e don't keep keep cutting down trees faster than we can grow them. It doesn't take a genius to work out that we can't keep doing that forever.

And almost all of us would be peasnat farmers

What? Why? Living in a sustainable way doesn't mean we all have to buy gumboots and grow our own vegetables.

Hm, we wouldn't be peasnat farmers either , even if our ancestors got here, because they wouldn't have been able to cut down the bush and kauri forest, so no farmland in NZ.

There could be plenty of farmland. We would just need to keep enough forest to counteract the extra methane given off by the farm animals (think fart tax) and such like.

No one is saying that we can't live in a modern way or have modern luxuries. We can still use recourses. We just need to balance the rate at which we use those recourses, with the rate at which they can be renewed.

Ixion

31st January 2008, 14:44

Who said there was a problem with cutting down trees? There's no problem with that at all.
It just needs to be done in a sustainable way.
i.e don't keep keep cutting down trees faster than we can grow them. It doesn't take a genius to work out that we can't keep doing that forever.

That's only valid because in most of the Western world almost all the trees were cut down centuries ago. To make room for all the people. Now we're saying to the devloping world "Hey, we clear felled our forests years ago, and that was OK and good. But you guys wanting to do now what we did then is a nono". Sort of "Do what we say, not what we did".

What? Why? Living in a sustainable way doesn't mean we all have to buy gumboots and grow our own vegetables.

No Industrial revolution, what else are you going to do ?

There could be plenty of farmland. We would just need to keep enough forest to counteract the extra methane given off by the farm animals (think fart tax) and such like.

No one is saying that we can't live in a modern way or have modern luxuries. We can still use recourses. We just need to balance the rate at which we use those recourses, with the rate at which they can be renewed.

As above, that's only valid if you take it that 'now' is a starting point.

Ixion

31st January 2008, 14:54

Actually, come to think of it, what's the big deal about trees? Grass is less interesting than trees, but it uses the same biochemistry. Same carbon dioxide cycle and all that . And arguably the area of grass may be greater than the area of leaf surface in a tree. Almost certainly if we're comparing broad stem grasses, with conifer forest, I would think. And less minerals bound up in the woody stems.

So possibly cutting down the trees for grassland or arable (which is just a form of grass) is a net environmental gain.

avgas

31st January 2008, 14:56

• Take control. We are what we do.
I used to think that, but now i realise that we are not what we do, we are what others do around us. Not quite dictatorship, more false advertising.
I believe the terms "Lemming", "TooL" or "Sheep" come to mind.
This was typed on a PC that is now outdated and will be thrown away in approximately 5-10 years, not because i do not like it, because others around me will tell me it isn't good enough.

Cruisin' Craig

31st January 2008, 15:17

That's only valid because in most of the Western world almost all the trees were cut down centuries ago. To make room for all the people. Now we're saying to the devloping world "Hey, we clear felled our forests years ago, and that was OK and good. But you guys wanting to do now what we did then is a nono". Sort of "Do what we say, not what we did".

No Industrial revolution, what else are you going to do ?

As above, that's only valid if you take it that 'now' is a starting point.

Hang on, are we sure there couldn't be an industrial revolution without compromising sustainability? I'm not sure I'm ready to accept that one.

For example, I've just looked up how oil consumption has varied over time. At the moment we are using over eighty million barrels per year. In 1940 we were only using about six million barrels per year. So what would we have been using during the industrial revolution? Absolutely bugger all, I think, is the answer. It could well be that it was either within, or close to, the limits of sustainable drilling.
I suspect you are vastly overestimating how much our lives would have been adversely affected if our ancestors had shown a little more forethought.

I think you make a really valid point about the seemingly hypocritical attitude toward developing countries however.
But just because it seems hypocritical doesn't make it any less necessary does it?

Ixion

31st January 2008, 15:22

Industrial Revolution was coal not oil. But how can you have sustainable oil drilling? There's no way at all that oil (or coal) gets replenished. Not for the next few million years, anyway.

And how do you maintain sustainability with metals? (That's germanium, silicon*, as well as aluminium, iron, manganese etc ) You can recycle some, but nowhere near 100%. And replenishment of ores by volcanic activity and leaching/sedimentation takes more millions of years.

About the only sustainable fabrication material is wood. Care to develop a technological society based solely on wood?

* I know, silicon isn't actually a metal

Cruisin' Craig

31st January 2008, 15:37

.... But how can you have sustainable oil drilling? There's no way at all that oil (or coal) gets replenished. Not for the next few million years, anyway.

By returning to the definition of sustainability that started this discussion:

"One of the better definitions of "sustainability" is "the ability to meet the needs of today's people and environment without compromising that of subsequent generations".

I would argue that the industrial revolution and subsequent technological development has given us the ability to find alternative materials, recourses and energy sources that can enable us to avoid compromising future generations if we only choose to make the effort.
I would argue that our ancestors during the industrial revolution have done us the world of good.
But I would also argue that if we continue to use the resources that they started tapping at our current rate, then we will have compromised future generations, and hence failed to achieve sustainability.

Ixion

31st January 2008, 15:46

Cruisin' Craig

31st January 2008, 15:53

Well, if the future generations are going to be able to find and develop alternative , non-fossil energy sources (and fabrication materials : sustainability can't just be about energy), then we may as well use up the fossil stuff as fast as we please. Cos they won't need it.

Unless of course we are doing damage by using up these resources, for which they will suffer the consequences: i.e global warming etc. In this case your arguments breaks down, and we really do need to be focusing on sustainability.

And if they are not going to be able to find and develop non-fossil sources , then they're already screwed, it's just a matter of how long it takes.

Unless they aren't screwed, because they can actually get away with a major lifestyle change. In which case we can to facilitate a smooth transition to this lifestyle by focusing some of our efforts on developing sustainability.

Actually ultimately they're screwed no matter what we do. All our purportedly "renewable" energy depends on the sun or geo heat - as solar energy, hydro, volcanic steam, biofuel, wood etc- . And the sun is not a sustainable energy source. It's going to run out. May take a while, but that's just a matter of how many future generations you worry about. If we're allowed to put limits on it , then I'll put one generation as my limit. And they should be OK no matter what we do.

And now you're just screwing around! :laugh:

Ixion

31st January 2008, 16:03

Unless of course we are doing damage by using up these resources, for which they will suffer the consequences: i.e global warming etc, in which case that arguments breaks down, and we really do need to be focusing on sustainability.

Global warming , which may or may not exist, and may or may not be a bad thing (or a good thing) , if it does, is a complete different argument to sustainability.

I can burn lots and lots of wood sustainably, making charcoal (to make steel sustainably, as they did long ago). And generating heaps and heaps of carbon dioxide.

In fact , sustainable communities (think middle ages here) may well be worse from a global warming point of view than non sustainable ones. Just that the last time we had major industrial activity pre Industrial revolution (industry didn't get started with the Industrial revolution , ofcourse), there weren't anywhere near so many people (thank the agrarian revolution which preceeded the Industrial one for that) . Where's Mr Merde when we need him.

Unless they aren't screwed, because they can actually get away with a major lifestyle change. In which case we can to facilitate a smooth transition to this lifestyle by focusing some of our efforts on developing sustainability.

I recognise that lifestyle change. In fact, I've seen it. They're screwed. Or, at any rate 90% of them are, because that sort of 'lifestyle change' can't sustain present day population densities.

You have to accept that humanity needs to be sustainable too, y'know. Greens always overlook that resource.

Still waiting to hear how you're going to manage sustainable fabrication materials ?
EDIT: Fabrication materials. I left out non reinforced concrete and brick. They're probably sustainable. Shit of job to build a motorcycle out of brick and morter, though.

Cruisin' Craig

31st January 2008, 16:23

Global warming , which may or may not exist, and may or may not be a bad thing (or a good thing) , if it does, is a complete different argument to sustainability.

Not according to the definition of sustainability given. "Without compromising future generations" remember?

I recognise that lifestyle change. In fact, I've seen it. They're screwed. Or, at any rate 90% of them are, because that sort of 'lifestyle change' can't sustain present day population densities.

Yep, could be a problem, I'll agree with that. I guess how much of a problem depends on how we go with finding the alternatives we mentioned earlier. Perhaps a focus on sustainability will give future generations more time to find these alternatives.

Still waiting to hear how you're going to manage sustainable fabrication materials ?
EDIT: Fabrication materials. I left out non reinforced concrete and brick. They're probably sustainable. Shit of job to build a motorcycle out of brick and morter, though.

It'd probably be much like a Harley :-)

Ixion

31st January 2008, 16:33

Not according to the definition of sustainability given. "Without compromising future generations" remember?

You are assuming what you are attempting to prove. There is only a link between sustainability and global warming IF it be accepted that
(a) a culture based on sustainability affects global warming, one way or other
(b) global warming is a reality
(c) global warming is a Bad Thing

None of those assumptions are axiomatic. They may, or may not, be true

Cruisin' Craig

31st January 2008, 16:48

You are assuming what you are attempting to prove. There is only a link between sustainability and global warming IF it be accepted that
(a) a culture based on sustainability affects global warming, one way or other
(b) global warming is a reality
(c) global warming is a Bad Thing

None of those assumptions are axiomatic. They may, or may not, be true

Well, as I understand, there's no real argument about whether global warming is actually happening. Drowning polar bears is testament to that. The argument lies around whether the global warming is man-made.

Personally, I think that the link between carbon dioxide levels and global temperatures is pretty overwhelming, although admittedly there are those who disagree. I've read some of their arguments and am not impressed.
Note that carbon emissions are man made, and CAN be affected by sustainable living.

So the only question left is whether global warming is bad. Scientists predictions seem to range from a significant inconvenience, to outright disaster for humanity. I'd rather not gamble on this one :-)

Still waiting to hear how you're going to manage sustainable fabrication materials ?
EDIT: Fabrication materials. I left out non reinforced concrete and brick. They're probably sustainable. Shit of job to build a motorcycle out of brick and morter, though.

To give a more complete answer....

I've heard it said that we can expect the world population to level out in the future at about 9 billion.

So is there enough metal and silicon and suchlike in the world for 9 billion people?

Well I guess there isn't much choice in the matter. It's going to have to be enough.

As prices of these materials rise, recycling these materials will probably become the norm.
Things will need to be built to last, instead of to be thrown away.
Interestingly, these are approaches advocated by supporters of sustainable living.

davereid

31st January 2008, 17:34

Well, as I understand, there's no real argument about whether global warming is actually happening. Drowning polar bears is testament to that. The argument lies around whether the global warming is man-made.

Personally, I think that the link between carbon dioxide levels and global temperatures is pretty overwhelming, although admittedly there are those who disagree. I've read some of their arguments and am not impressed.
Note that carbon emissions are man made, and CAN be affected by sustainable living.

So the only question left is whether global warming is bad. Scientists predictions seem to range from a significant inconvenience, to outright disaster for humanity. I'd rather not gamble on this one :-)

1.
Its far from certain that Global warming is even happening. It would appear to be happening in some places.

But ask the Chinese currently freezing in the coldest winter for 100 years if it's happening in their polluted backyard.

Certainly in our own recorded history we are at a low point in the global temperature cycle, not a high point. Thats why the Romans wanted to grow grapes in York in the UK - they considered the climate perfect for viticulture. Bit cold these days to grow grapes there, at least commercially.

2.
The link between carbon dioxide levels and temerature is well established. But, its the other way around. Carbon dioxide levels increase after temperature increases. Mr. Gore and others cooked the figures to make it look the other way around. (Google it !)

3.
Is Global warming bad ? We don't even agree it's happening !

Kyoto ?
Possibly the biggest fraud ever perpetuated on the world.

Ask yourself a few questions about Kyoto.

1. Who wins from Kyoto ?
The Pollys will tell you that you do.
But actually, all that will happen is your energy costs, and thus everything else too will go up.

Your Mum will freeze in her pensioner apartment as she can't afford electricity, and her wood burner is banned.

She won't be able to afford good food as it will be too expensive, due to the cost of transport, and the diversion of crop land to biofuels.

She will be stuck at home watching TV as private transport has been priced out of her reach.

So, the pollies are wrong. Someone else is winning.

The nuclear industry will be quids in. Already are. China and Russia are building nukes as fast as they can chuck - em - up. Even Finland is in on it, chucking in a giant Nuke.

The petrochemical companies are a winner too. As you pay the tax, not them. And if consumption goes down, they have a longer future in business. All hey need to do is crank up the profit margin, and that will be easy. Doubling the margin on a litre of gas from $.10 to $.20 will be a breeze when politicians are sticking $2 on for carbon.

And the banks ?
Yep, you will be trading carbon every day, on everything you buy. And guess what. A little swiss bank will be getting a cut on it all. A brand new market, invented just when it was needed. Very cunning.

Cruisin' Craig

31st January 2008, 18:01

Certainly in our own recorded history we are at a low point in the global temperature cycle, not a high point. Thats why the Romans wanted to grow grapes in York in the UK - they considered the climate perfect for viticulture. Bit cold these days to grow grapes there, at least commercially.

I'm not quite sure where this comes from. I've just done some googling.
The first three global temperature graphs I found showed the current temperature to be at a high point for the last sixty years or so.
Then I found a global temperature graph covering all 4.6 billion years of the Earths history.
This shows our current temperature to be the third highest peak in the history of the Earth. Certainly a local high!

Here it is: http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/temperature/

2.
The link between carbon dioxide levels and temerature is well established. But, its the other way around. Carbon dioxide levels increase after temperature increases. Mr. Gore and others cooked the figures to make it look the other way around. (Google it !)

I haven't been able to find this. I'd like to have a read if you can help with a link??

Hitcher

31st January 2008, 19:11

Concern about "global warming" is, in my opinion, a red herring. It's a fear tactic that propagandaists, such as the lovely Al Gore, have overused to make a point.

Living more sustainably makes sense on several levels without the need to endeavour to resort to dodgy statistics or equivocal science to frame a point. It doesn't cost, it pays dividends to all who embrace it. Lots of small initiatives collectively add up. The scale of human waste, as referenced by the link in the first post in this thread, is truly phenomenal. Doing nothing is not an option.

Usarka

31st January 2008, 19:39

Limit population growth.

three kids maximum per family.

injected contraceptive given at collection of dpb payment.

Hitcher

31st January 2008, 19:44

Limit population growth.

three kids maximum per family.

injected contraceptive given at collection of dpb payment.

Define "family". With the propensity of some fellows to repeatedly knock up the woman of their dreams, subsequently move on to a newer model and repeat the experience; keeping count of the resultant offspring could cause bureaucrats to prematurely infarct.

Ocean1

31st January 2008, 19:48

injected contraceptive given at collection of dpb payment.

Retroactive to birth.

Ocean1

31st January 2008, 19:50

Ixion

31st January 2008, 19:52

Define "family". With the propensity of some fellows to repeated knock up the woman of their dreams, subsequently move on to a newer model and repeat the experience; keeping count of the resultant offspring could cause bureaucrats to prematurely infarct.

I already answered that problem
'

Easy solution. Government by law adds contraceptive pill to all water supplies. Only the Speights brewery has an exception. So, chicks remain non-preggers. Guys that drinks Speights are OK. Those that don't drink Speights are probably homos anyway, so a dose of fanny pills will probably be right up their (back) alley.

And the population will be maintained by the small but elite and refined group of chicks who drink Speights. Who obviously are exactly the sort of people we want as the nations Mums.

Big Dave

31st January 2008, 20:44

The nuclear industry will be quids in. Already are. China and Russia are building nukes as fast as they can chuck - em - up. Even Finland is in on it, chucking in a giant Nuke.

And Australia has most of the world's Uranium.
Sheik Big Dave of Dubbo....nice.

Badjelly

1st February 2008, 08:35

The link between carbon dioxide levels and temperature is well established. But, its the other way around. Carbon dioxide levels increase after temperature increases.

I haven't been able to find this. I'd like to have a read if you can help with a link??

Maybe I can help:

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/04/the-lag-between-temp-and-co2/

I'll give you a hint that will help you understand what the fuss is about: some people have trouble understanding that "A affects B" and "B affects A" can both be true at the same time!

avgas

1st February 2008, 09:21

Ask yourself a few questions about Kyoto.

1. Who wins from Kyoto ?
The Pollys will tell you that you do.
But actually, all that will happen is your energy costs, and thus everything else too will go up.

Your Mum will freeze in her pensioner apartment as she can't afford electricity, and her wood burner is banned.

She won't be able to afford good food as it will be too expensive, due to the cost of transport, and the diversion of crop land to biofuels.

She will be stuck at home watching TV as private transport has been priced out of her reach.

Umm no - Kyoto actually has the opposite. Its a very delightful city. New Zealand could learn a lot from how clean and well thought it is. But then again when has NZ learnt anything? We still vote and then bitch, cut down our native lands, expect unemployed to improve themselves, polute more than we are worth and complain about crims - while there is not a single drop of reasonable structure to scare crims out of crime.

If it wern't for the whaling i think Japan would make NZ look like the un-clean, un-intelligent, rubbish filled country that it is <_<
We assume that we know better here, but we are wrong sometimes too.

jazbug5

1st February 2008, 11:06

Yeah pretty much. We never run out of anything, because as it gets scarce, it gets expensive, so we just use something else.

Oookay. And if clean, unpolluted air and water becomes scarce, what will we use instead..?

Ixion

1st February 2008, 11:11

Oookay. And if clean, unpolluted air and water becomes scarce, what will we use instead..?

As was the case in the 19th century.

jazbug5

1st February 2008, 11:22

Ixion

1st February 2008, 11:37

Every age thinks its own problems are worse than any past age.

Victorian pollution had lots of lovely nasties - lead (in profusion), mercury, tin, hells own concoctions from smelting and blast furnaces. Plus water loaded with microbes. Assuming that you had running water at all, which millions didn't.

Cleaning water isn't that hard, we do it now. Cleaning air, a bit harder , but not impossible even today.

Though none of that actually has anything to do with sustainability.

Ocean1

1st February 2008, 12:05

Ah, but Ixion- we have a rather wider range of pollutants available to us now and many of them are for more toxic and also more capable of entering the food chain. In those days there were terrible issues in new industrial centres because of the sudden population growth. Smog was poisonous, but subsided relatively quickly, and better hygiene and plumbing was enough to deal with pollution caused by human waste etc.
The scale of the issues we now face have a much higher potential scale and severity; can we really say for sure that we can turn back and reverse the damage we are doing quite as easily in the future?

We shouldn't be so sloppy about disposal fer sure, but in the long run if we convert a set of components into a dangerous combination we can un-make them, at some cost.

If I was a worrier I'd be far more stressed about likely biological threats than chemical ones, far more difficult to manage.

Every age thinks its own problems are worse than any past age.

Victorian pollution had lots of lovely nasties - lead (in profusion), mercury, tin, hells own concoctions from smelting and blast furnaces. Plus water loaded with microbes. Assuming that you had running water at all, which millions didn't.

Cleaning water isn't that hard, we do it now. Cleaning air, a bit harder , but not impossible even today.

Though none of that actually has anything to do with sustainability.

Yup, easy to lose perspective, our life expectance and quality are far better than at any time in history, and we can thank Victorian England for much of those improvements.

I can agree that the rampant growth in consumerism adds little to either of the above though, and represents an irresponsible element to post industrial revolution tech advances.

davereid

1st February 2008, 20:13

Oookay. And if clean, unpolluted air and water becomes scarce, what will we use instead..?

You are quite right. We need good water and air quality.

But you are making the mistake of assuming that because something is SUSTAINABLE that it is better then something that is UNSUSTAINABLE.

With due respect to the previous defnition of sustainable, I would suggest that NOTHING is infinite, except taxes. And everything we do has a cost.

Examples :

We replace unsustainable fossil fuel with biofuels.
.. Biofuels produce EXACTLY the same amount of carbon as fossil fuels.

The claim they are carbon neutral is untrue unless they are grown in an area that was previously desert.

In any other case, they have merely displaced a carbon sink that was being used for some other purpose.

And even then, the desert will require energy to provide water, transport, infrastructure... the list goes on.

Of course biofuel is therefore sustainable, as long as there is desert to convert to biofuel production, water to turn the desert into cropland.

But, we will run out of desert.

What exactly is sustainable then ?

Well, everything is.
The stone age didn't end because we ran out of stones.
The industrial revolution didn't end because we ran out of coal.
The oil age won't end because we run out of oil, and the sustainabilty age won't end because we run out of desert.

If oil is really unsustainable, let it run out on its own. (It won't)

Don't ban using it now, so someone else (who doesn't need it) can use it in the future.

Particularly if that means freezing, starving, and impoverishing people who actually still have access to resources that mean they dont need to be freezing starving or poor.