Consumerism vs sustainability

[Ixion]

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]

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

[Cruisin' Craig]

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]

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]

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]

• 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]

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]

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]

.... 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]

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.

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.

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.

[Cruisin' Craig]

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!

[Ixion]

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]

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]

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]

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.