Sustainability and consumption.

To have is to be… is a measure of self-creation, of self-perception, through consumption and possession.  As we continue to consume, so too then must we continue to extract, and increase our industrial production.  This development is indeed perhaps at the root of problem, and its inclusion in the sustainable development.  Consuming will not fix all that is broken with the world, in this consumer-oriented society and lifestyle.  Asking someone to cast off their materialistic tendencies would be akin to asking someone to give up who they are as an individual.  As indicated earlier, our economic system is one of exploitation of resources, and is ingrained in us.  Inertia keeps this moving forward and is part of our identity.  As we consume, differently or newly, we can actually redefine ourselves, and so associate with new individuals and groups who share similar compulsions.

Frustration is not necessary any more.  Why do we continue to do this?  We can see, or at least feel, the impact our consuming has on the environment, so why do we continue at a pace?  We assume that consuming more is somehow improving ourselves, bettering ourselves, looking at achieving perfection.

We’ve hit 7 billion people earlier this year, and the vitality of ecosystems is a measure of our own vitality.  We are a species like all others, indivisible from the natural world.  We have a great capacity to adversely affect natural ecosystems in a very short period of time thanks to our huge population and technologies.  But let us not fall back to that pre-industrial mindset, and let us consider the new clean-tech mindset, where this destruction is not necessarily a given reality.  Rather, let us make decisions now, with far reaching long-term goals that do not meet the wants now, but the needs for later… and our needs are inexhaustible.

A Consideration of the opinion of a mate…

Climate change is often focused around carbon – how much is in the earth, in the atmosphere, and how much we are changing those amounts.  I am seeing a connection this week between carbon releases and population growth.  When you think about it, the more people there are, the greater their carbon footprint.  A non-person would have a carbon footprint of zero, after all.  And when you think of the footprints of the descendants of this non-person also being zero – the impacts are huge!  Less people, less emissions, less impact, right?  So – for all of the efforts that governments to go to impose controls and sanctions on corporations that emit high amounts of carbon, or the oil sands with their huge carbon footprint, governments would do better to send the message that the more non-persons we have, the lesser their footprint would be. 

But maybe it is not just in the hands of government?  Maybe corporations in an effort to expand their carbon offsetting schemes will invest in family planning initiatives and organizations.  Perhaps we can even develop a new market for persons and non-persons, moving them as needed to properly offset their impacts. 

Malthusian and Neo-Malthusian thinking shows that the population bomb has exploded, and only in the support control programs can we even consider our any stability on of this world.  What a wonderful and clean world we will have, full of non-persons.



Personal Edit/Response: I cannot deny the astronomical effects out-of-control population growth is going to have on this planet.  My contention is with those that besmirch those that have children, to the point that even ostracizing them as the walk down the street.  Have 14 kids is a bit much, but our children will be the ones to find a way forward where we have yet not done so.  When I asked my 4 year old what he wanted for his 5th birthday, he said he wanted to make the world more green.  Is it not these kinds of people that we want in the world?

Ecology comes of age – I even took it in school!

What early writers on ecology did was to bring the ideas of environmental catastrophe down from its lofty position in science to the values and emotions of people.  No longer were human impacts on the environment left to statistical and scientific knowledge and jargon that only a select few to understand.  The works of early activists such as Carson and Commoner brought an emotional connection to the data, making it accessible to a much broader audience.  I wonder if the medium and language they used had the underlying intent of a scare tactic to make its point.  It may be true, but I’ve a feeling that if it did not have such an intent, the impact would not have been felt and we would have continued on, business as usual.

No longer could individuals be absolved of their responsibility to the effects their lifestyles of consumption have on the planet.  The sense of entitlement to extraction and consumption began to be coupled with awareness of actions.  What happened in the sense of ecological thought at the time was that the facts and data were beginning to mean something to voters and consumers, and was beginning to change how they vote and what they bought.  These attitudes, emotions, beliefs need to change.  These thoughts are what drives our behavior.  If one can change an attitude, the behavior will change for itself.  Perhaps this is the direction policy makers should take – don't impose controls on people, but work to change their minds…