|
This is a piece by Jared Diamond in the New York Times. Jared Diamond is the writer of "Guns, Germs, and Steel," for which he won a pulitzer, I believe, and also the author of "Collapse," which explores how various past civilizations have succeeded or failed at dealing with the threat of environmental disaster. This is about 2 pages long. Please feel free to discuss.
----------------------------------------------
What's Your Consumption Factor? By Jared Diamond The New York Times
Wednesday 02 January 2008
To mathematicians, 32 is an interesting number: it's 2 raised to the fifth power, 2 times 2 times 2 times 2 times 2. To economists, 32 is even more special, because it measures the difference in lifestyles between the first world and the developing world. The average rates at which people consume resources like oil and metals, and produce wastes like plastics and greenhouse gases, are about 32 times higher in North America, Western Europe, Japan and Australia than they are in the developing world. That factor of 32 has big consequences.
To understand them, consider our concern with world population. Today, there are more than 6.5 billion people, and that number may grow to around 9 billion within this half-century. Several decades ago, many people considered rising population to be the main challenge facing humanity. Now we realize that it matters only insofar as people consume and produce.
If most of the world's 6.5 billion people were in cold storage and not metabolizing or consuming, they would create no resource problem. What really matters is total world consumption, the sum of all local consumptions, which is the product of local population times the local per capita consumption rate.
The estimated one billion people who live in developed countries have a relative per capita consumption rate of 32. Most of the world's other 5.5 billion people constitute the developing world, with relative per capita consumption rates below 32, mostly down toward 1.
The population especially of the developing world is growing, and some people remain fixated on this. They note that populations of countries like Kenya are growing rapidly, and they say that's a big problem. Yes, it is a problem for Kenya's more than 30 million people, but it's not a burden on the whole world, because Kenyans consume so little. (Their relative per capita rate is 1.) A real problem for the world is that each of us 300 million Americans consumes as much as 32 Kenyans. With 10 times the population, the United States consumes 320 times more resources than Kenya does.
People in the third world are aware of this difference in per capita consumption, although most of them couldn't specify that it's by a factor of 32. When they believe their chances of catching up to be hopeless, they sometimes get frustrated and angry, and some become terrorists, or tolerate or support terrorists. Since Sept. 11, 2001, it has become clear that the oceans that once protected the United States no longer do so. There will be more terrorist attacks against us and Europe, and perhaps against Japan and Australia, as long as that factorial difference of 32 in consumption rates persists.
People who consume little want to enjoy the high-consumption lifestyle. Governments of developing countries make an increase in living standards a primary goal of national policy. And tens of millions of people in the developing world seek the first-world lifestyle on their own, by emigrating, especially to the United States and Western Europe, Japan and Australia. Each such transfer of a person to a high-consumption country raises world consumption rates, even though most immigrants don't succeed immediately in multiplying their consumption by 32.
Among the developing countries that are seeking to increase per capita consumption rates at home, China stands out. It has the world's fastest growing economy, and there are 1.3 billion Chinese, four times the United States population. The world is already running out of resources, and it will do so even sooner if China achieves American-level consumption rates. Already, China is competing with us for oil and metals on world markets.
Per capita consumption rates in China are still about 11 times below ours, but let's suppose they rise to our level. Let's also make things easy by imagining that nothing else happens to increase world consumption - that is, no other country increases its consumption, all national populations (including China's) remain unchanged and immigration ceases. China's catching up alone would roughly double world consumption rates. Oil consumption would increase by 106 percent, for instance, and world metal consumption by 94 percent.
If India as well as China were to catch up, world consumption rates would triple. If the whole developing world were suddenly to catch up, world rates would increase elevenfold. It would be as if the world population ballooned to 72 billion people (retaining present consumption rates).
Some optimists claim that we could support a world with nine billion people. But I haven't met anyone crazy enough to claim that we could support 72 billion. Yet we often promise developing countries that if they will only adopt good policies - for example, institute honest government and a free-market economy - they, too, will be able to enjoy a first-world lifestyle. This promise is impossible, a cruel hoax: we are having difficulty supporting a first-world lifestyle even now for only one billion people.
We Americans may think of China's growing consumption as a problem. But the Chinese are only reaching for the consumption rate we already have. To tell them not to try would be futile.
The only approach that China and other developing countries will accept is to aim to make consumption rates and living standards more equal around the world. But the world doesn't have enough resources to allow for raising China's consumption rates, let alone those of the rest of the world, to our levels. Does this mean we're headed for disaster?
No, we could have a stable outcome in which all countries converge on consumption rates considerably below the current highest levels. Americans might object: there is no way we would sacrifice our living standards for the benefit of people in the rest of the world. Nevertheless, whether we get there willingly or not, we shall soon have lower consumption rates, because our present rates are unsustainable.
Real sacrifice wouldn't be required, however, because living standards are not tightly coupled to consumption rates. Much American consumption is wasteful and contributes little or nothing to quality of life. For example, per capita oil consumption in Western Europe is about half of ours, yet Western Europe's standard of living is higher by any reasonable criterion, including life expectancy, health, infant mortality, access to medical care, financial security after retirement, vacation time, quality of public schools and support for the arts. Ask yourself whether Americans' wasteful use of gasoline contributes positively to any of those measures.
Other aspects of our consumption are wasteful, too. Most of the world's fisheries are still operated non-sustainably, and many have already collapsed or fallen to low yields - even though we know how to manage them in such a way as to preserve the environment and the fish supply. If we were to operate all fisheries sustainably, we could extract fish from the oceans at maximum historical rates and carry on indefinitely.
The same is true of forests: we already know how to log them sustainably, and if we did so worldwide, we could extract enough timber to meet the world's wood and paper needs. Yet most forests are managed non-sustainably, with decreasing yields.
Just as it is certain that within most of our lifetimes we'll be consuming less than we do now, it is also certain that per capita consumption rates in many developing countries will one day be more nearly equal to ours. These are desirable trends, not horrible prospects. In fact, we already know how to encourage the trends; the main thing lacking has been political will.
Fortunately, in the last year there have been encouraging signs. Australia held a recent election in which a large majority of voters reversed the head-in-the-sand political course their government had followed for a decade; the new government immediately supported the Kyoto Protocol on cutting greenhouse gas emissions.
Also in the last year, concern about climate change has increased greatly in the United States. Even in China, vigorous arguments about environmental policy are taking place, and public protests recently halted construction of a huge chemical plant near the center of Xiamen. Hence I am cautiously optimistic. The world has serious consumption problems, but we can solve them if we choose to do so.
----------
Jared Diamond, a professor of geography at the University of California, Los Angeles, is the author of "Collapse" and "Guns, Germs and Steel."
-------
|
gayest intro/anecdote EVER
|
A point I really liked was this:
"Real sacrifice wouldn't be required, however, because living standards are not tightly coupled to consumption rates. Much American consumption is wasteful and contributes little or nothing to quality of life. For example, per capita oil consumption in Western Europe is about half of ours, yet Western Europe's standard of living is higher by any reasonable criterion, including life expectancy, health, infant mortality, access to medical care, financial security after retirement, vacation time, quality of public schools and support for the arts. Ask yourself whether Americans' wasteful use of gasoline contributes positively to any of those measures."
Jared also points out that depending on how we do things, relatively high levels of consumption could feasibly be maintained. Over-consumption is what threatens environmental balance.
|
United States22883 Posts
Very much agree with him for the most part, except linking terrorism to quality of life. Most Middle Eastern terrorists are from the absurdly wealthy oil states, not drastically poor Palestine and Syria. It's far too complicated to be boiled down into that.
Also, paper making is not really the main culprit for forest problems. Aside from fires, most of the problem (at least in South America) is from residential clearing - removing forests to make new places to live.
I think per capita consumption rate is a bit deceiving, because it's not most of the Chinese people consuming like that. It's the business and industry with the bulk of it.
|
We require more minerals.
|
On January 03 2008 12:00 SonuvBob wrote: We require more minerals.
This basically sums up my SC experience, real life, and the article.
|
Jibba, my understanding is that while Saudi Arabia is very wealthy, it is primarily the royalty that enjoy that wealth. But I am not sure I agree with you or Jared on the matter of terrorism.
I'm not sure the middle eastern terrorists are angry because of disproportionate consumption - I think they are angry over other matters such as US support of Israel, intervention in middle eastern politics, etc. That said, it is known that disparities in wealth, combined with status and respect attached to higher levels of wealth, is a cause of crime, and reasonably terrorism as well. (When people feel pressure to obtain a certain lifestyle, but can't do so through legal means, they will turn to crime.) Whether or not previous acts of terrorism have anything to do with inequalities in wealth, it seems reasonable to me that future terrorist acts could revolve around this issue.
My understanding is that the Chinese people are increasingly enjoying a consumer lifestyle. It's a matter of degree, but I think Jared is right that China and its people are moving in that direction, and certainly right that people all over the world would like to attain the American standard of living.
No argument about the tree issue you mention. I think the real point here is that there is a sustainable level of resource use (in this case the resource is lumber) and then there is over-use. Obviously societies need to focus on sustainable use, which ultimately would yeild far more lumber (and wealth) in the long run than over-using the land in the short term.
|
United States22883 Posts
On January 03 2008 13:15 nA.Inky wrote: Jibba, my understanding is that while Saudi Arabia is very wealthy, it is primarily the royalty that enjoy that wealth. But I am not sure I agree with you or Jared on the matter of terrorism. Well, anyone who is descendant from the Saudi tribe (essentially Saudi citizens), receives a monthly (I think) check from the government from the oil wealth. Non-tribesman have much worse living standards (besides Americans/oil workers), but pretty much everyone in the tribe lives a life of extreme comfort. That's part of the reason there are so few social movements in Saudi Arabia. It's one of the most restrictive countries in the Middle East, but the people are paid off so they're pretty content with the status quo.
I'm not sure the middle eastern terrorists are angry because of disproportionate consumption - I think they are angry over other matters such as US support of Israel, intervention in middle eastern politics, etc. That said, it is known that disparities in wealth, combined with status and respect attached to higher levels of wealth, is a cause of crime, and reasonably terrorism as well. (When people feel pressure to obtain a certain lifestyle, but can't do so through legal means, they will turn to crime.) Whether or not previous acts of terrorism have anything to do with inequalities in wealth, it seems reasonable to me that future terrorist acts could revolve around this issue. Wealth is a factor, but I don't think in the way that they're envious and resorting to it for the reasons we see people resort to petty crimes like theft. It's more about our greed and imperialistic nature, not their greed. Although most everyone in power is hugely influenced by greed (moreso than even the US!)
My understanding is that the Chinese people are increasingly enjoying a consumer lifestyle. It's a matter of degree, but I think Jared is right that China and its people are moving in that direction, and certainly right that people all over the world would like to attain the American standard of living.
Urbanites definitely are. With cars and computers taking off, the people in big cities are definitely being rewarded. I think the majority of the population is rural, however, and their lives are still quite terrible. The Olympics are the most obvious example of the problem. Nice fancy renovations everywhere, and they only had to clear half a million people's homes to build a stadium!
No argument about the tree issue you mention. I think the real point here is that there is a sustainable level of resource use (in this case the resource is lumber) and then there is over-use. Obviously societies need to focus on sustainable use, which ultimately would yeild far more lumber (and wealth) in the long run than over-using the land in the short term.
Very true. Maybe a reduction in paper use will help aid the problem. I don't know enough about the home building/forest razing situation in South America, but I assume it'd be quite difficult to make them stop.
I remember as a kid, donating quarters to plant trees in Israel. Little did I know they were planting them on people's former homes. :/
|
I see several problems with statements in the article. Maybe I'm misunderstanding something, but here they are as I see them. Please note that I'm not against curbing waste or trying to be an anti environmentalist or whatnot, I'm just pointing out what appear to be logical inconsistencies. And I hate it when people make my side look bad with stupid arguments.
1.The world cannot sustain more than x number of humans, with this x being somewhere under 72 billion.
This statement is assumed to be true, justified by 'I have not met anyone crazy enough to claim otherwise,' which implies that anyone who disagrees is crazy. Not only is this illogical, it is also an underhanded attack on people who do not agree.
However, if the world's population were to reduce consumption of resources to a bare minimum (which is at the most "1" unit of consumption, and possibly lower), then the current resource production could conceivably meet the demand of such a large population. The inconsistency is evident.
Also, this talk of "at current consumption rate" is ambiguous at best: whose current consumption rate? The world average? The Americans'? The Africans'? He speaks of an effective population of 72 billion if the consumption rate changed to match those of Americans', and in the same model uses the "current consumption rate."
2. The amount of resources produced is inherently limited; any discrepancy between consumption and supply must be resolved by limiting consumption.
I will postulate that there are non-renewable, non-recyclable, non-replacable, critical resources for which no known acceptable substitute exists. I really can't think of any off the top of my head, but we'll work on the assumption that there is.
The result of such an assumption is that everyone dies. If you need it and you can't have it, what happens? Whatever it is, we're going to run out at some point. The only difference that reducing consumption of that resource is going to make is that we're going to die more slowly. There is the added dimension that we might develop a workable replacement if we have more time, but I find it hard to believe that such a timeframe exists and applies to our (and I mean our world) situation.
That leaves renewable or recyclable or replacable resources. Who does the renewing, recycling, or replacing? The people. Obviously, it takes less than one person to produce enough for more than one person; otherwise, there would be a clear and immediate lack of things to consume, or everyone would be in the manufacturing industry. The problem is the solution, in this case.
Also, historically, production per capita has been increasing. In some areas, this growth is sublinear, in others it is exponential. If we applied the article's logic to the production rates of a pre-industrial revolution world, we would find that the current world status is not possible, because we did not account for advances in production methods.
|
United States22883 Posts
|
On January 03 2008 15:08 BottleAbuser wrote: If we applied the article's logic to the production rates of a pre-industrial revolution world, we would find that the current world status is not possible, because we did not account for advances in production methods.
This is exactly it. I find all too often the importance of technological improvements is neglected when looking at the scarcity of resources issue. Dare I say, politicians should be spending less time negotiating environmental target treaties and more time encouraging co-operation and more funds available to researchers developing the world's technological state. For example, assuming the introduction of increased anti-pollution regulations costs businesses $X a year. Instead of having these increased regulations the government instead taxed businesses receiving revenue of a$X, where a is a constant that may be greater or less than 1 since the efficiency of the tax relative to the increased cost of meeting regulations is unknown (although I would assume a < 1). I would rather $aX be then transferred to research and development than simply raising costs on businesses.
The fact world leaders sign something like the Kyoto treaty is a move to gain votes; even if the target are set after their governmental term is over the political party (and the leader) can easily tell the electorate what they've done to help the environment, and similarly, the electorate can easily understand what's happened. Whereas research and development may take, say, a decade before tangible results are seen while in the meantime leaving politicians who support such paths with a relatively less impressive pro-environmental image.
|
BottleAbuser, I think a lot of this article could be written better, but I think his point about consumption rates is sound (what you address as point 1.)
He is saying that if everyone consumed like Americans do, it would be as if there are 72 billion people in the world in our PRESENT condition. His point is awkward, but it is sound. Again, IF everyone consumed like Americans (hypothetical) it would be as if there were 72 billion people in the world (given real present day conditions). Another way it is frequently put is that for everyone to consume like Americans, we would need 3+ Earths to sustain the level of consumption.
On point 2, I don't think Diamond is talking about non-renewable resources. He is talking about the rates at which we use renewable resources (like trees.)
To make a simplistic math example out of the problem, say there is some finite amount of trees, and they replenish themselves at a rate of 10/year. This means we can sustainably use trees at a rate of 10 or less per year - forever. But if we start taking more than 10 a year, we will deplete the pool of trees. That's all he is saying.
You point out that new production methods and technological advances make more efficient production possible. This is true. However, the gains in efficiency are off-set by ever expanding consumption. Never before has more waste and more consumption occured in the history of the world.
It is also important to guard against using the past to predict the future. Because humanity has avoided environmental catastrophe in the past does not mean it will in the future. (Actually, many civilizations have fallen due to how they lived in and treated their environment - this is the subject matter of Jared's book, Collapse.)
|
MiltonFriedman: The problem with focusing purely on technological development to solve environmental problems is that while technology can reduce pollution and increase productive efficiency, the "gains" that result are eaten up by expanded growth and consumption. If we curtailed economic growth and consumption, while employing improved technologies, it would go a long way towards avoiding the environmental crisis. However, virtually all politicians and businesses operate under the assumption of perpetual growth. No matter how greatly our environmental impact is reduced, as long as it exists and expands indefinitely, we will bring about environmental destruction. (Edit: the key here is *constant expansion* - consumption itself can be sustained, but endless growth in consumption cannot.)
It is worth considering, too, that technology itself has played perhaps the biggest role in creating present day environmental threats. The last hundred years have seen the rise of all manner of toxic chemicals, incredible increases in pollution and waste, and all manner of extremely powerful technologies. Much new technology is infact so complex that it is beyond democratic control, and it is simultaneously more powerful and dangerous than ever.
The view that technology will invariably take care of all problems is "technological fundamentalism." We must recognize this. Many people here speak of Christian or Islamic fundamentalism negatively, not realizing that they too possess fundamentalist views - an irrational faith in science and technology (not that science or technology are inherently wrong - just that nothing is absolute and we must always be critical and discerning.)
|
United States22883 Posts
On January 04 2008 01:05 nA.Inky wrote: MiltonFriedman: The problem with focusing purely on technological development to solve environmental problems is that while technology can reduce pollution and increase productive efficiency, the "gains" that result are eaten up by expanded growth and consumption. If we curtailed economic growth and consumption, while employing improved technologies, it would go a long way towards avoiding the environmental crisis. However, virtually all politicians and businesses operate under the assumption of perpetual growth. No matter how greatly our environmental impact is reduced, as long as it exists and expands indefinitely, we will bring about environmental destruction. (Edit: the key here is *constant expansion* - consumption itself can be sustained, but endless growth in consumption cannot.)
It is worth considering, too, that technology itself has played perhaps the biggest role in creating present day environmental threats. The last hundred years have seen the rise of all manner of toxic chemicals, incredible increases in pollution and waste, and all manner of extremely powerful technologies. Much new technology is infact so complex that it is beyond democratic control, and it is simultaneously more powerful and dangerous than ever.
The view that technology will invariably take care of all problems is "technological fundamentalism." We must recognize this. Many people here speak of Christian or Islamic fundamentalism negatively, not realizing that they too possess fundamentalist views - an irrational faith in science and technology (not that science or technology are inherently wrong - just that nothing is absolute and we must always be critical and discerning.)
This is the crux of what we disagree upon. We are critical and discerning, and that's what has led is from the concern over car crash safety to the concern of car emissions safety. Technology and development have had a visibly negative impact on nature, but in the past our entire focus with them was to improve our quality of life. We've reached a point where that is no longer the singular goal. Still technology should be used to improve the lives of everyone on the planet, but we can also direct it towards helping the planet itself, which is a brand new concept.
You're absolutely right that our old technology is the primary cause of our huge increase in consumption, but the purpose of new technology is to provide far less impactful replacements. 72 billion people living off of coal power plants and 10 year old car engines would probably be disastrous, but we're trying to make sure that's not the issue we face.
|
Even if we reduced our impact 4 or 5 times over, the present 6.6 billion population (which, again, is projected to grow) would not be able to sustain the PRESENT American standard of living (not everyone can live like Americans, even with vastly improved technology). This can be seen from the fact that the world is already facing extreme problems just from 1.5 billion people living the affluent lifestyle.
But the goal is not even to maintain the present standard of living with less high impact technology. The goal, first and foremost, is economic growth (expanded consumption/production with expanded waste as a byproduct). People are increasingly concerned about efficiency of technology, but again.. gains in efficiency are "wasted" on increased growth.
Again, the goal primarily discussed by politicians and producers is growth. Economic growth for those who are already filthy rich, and economic growth for the global poor. Growth everywhere.
Edit: it is important to realize that neither I nor Diamond are taking a stand against technology. No one here is recommending a return to a hunter-gatherer way of life, or a return to the Dark Ages. Instead, this is a well reasoned call to recognize limitations. We have to set limits.
|
United States22883 Posts
The gains of efficiency are much greater than 4-5 times, and the reasonable belief scientists have is that they will far surpass our growth. Cutting back on driving a car from 1990 is one approach, but it's one that would lower productivity, comfort and the economy. Driving a car from 2008 or 2012 or 2020 is the another, and you're not sacrificing those things. Furthermore, automobiles are an essential technology. Arguably not for house wives or teenagers, but for any industry you can think of. Pumping more money into their development is the fastest way to get things up to acceptable standards.
|
I think there are few renewable resources in which personnel is not the limiting factor. Planting and tending trees takes some finite amount of manpower, as well as some amount of materiel and land. I do not have any numbers, but given the vast amounts of surplus food that is "dumped" (literally thrown away) by the agriculture industry, I doubt that it would be very costly to ramp up production of lumber by several factors.
Also, the article argues that since forests are mismanaged to the point that they are not renewing, we should reduce consumption. It is far more likely and possible, and productive on top of that, to change how we are treating the forests than to change the behavior of millions of consumers.
As for technological advance: We can count on slow, incremental technological improvements, and wait for breakthroughs. I agree that it would be as illogical as religion to depend on some breakthrough to save us, but there is no problem with trusting a growth trend that exceeds consumption trends.
|
Well, it seems the bullshit argument is pretty much refuted already.
Condensed version:
There exist no non-renewable resources. [With energy and present-day technology, there is nothing we cannot create.] We have access to an amount of energy, from the sun, which by far surpasses the requirement of 72 billion Americans. With this amount of energy, it is very possible to recycle any so-called finite resource, such as metals and fresh water. The article is based on completely groundless and false assumptions about the possible production of the Earth.
EDIT: First paragraph is nonsense. 32 is a special number to mathematicians? Since when?
|
Zherak's statement above is a prime example of technological fundamentalism. I mean, think of the Christians on the one hand: "whatever happens is irrelevent, Jesus is coming back and all the Christians will be saved." Then think of folks like Zherak: "whatever happens is irrelevent, technology will keep evolving and will solve all problems."
These ideas are rooted in faith, and faith in technology is probably as misguided as any faith, given that the great looming crises are largely a product of technological development. Our power has exceeded our wisdom, and this causes us to act unwisely. The solution - let's ask Zherak.... "more technology! More power!"
Again, it's not that consumption is bad. It's not even that waste is necessarily bad. It's a question of SCALE. The present scale of consumption, production, and waste is staggering - not sustainable. As we speak, the scale is increasing greatly, and there are many poor people who want to jump in and play the modern game - catch the affluenza bug. About 1.5 billion of the Earth's population is in the consumption class, and the Earth is already buckling under this pressure. Add another 6 billion people to the consumption class and then what?
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
look at developmental dynamics going forward. that is what matters, not some theoretical technological utopia. the problem here is simple, whether a certain development is sustainable, and for what social cost. increases in efficient production techniques 'could' lead to less costly consumption, but you have to make the argument that this si likely or will happen, and act appropriately. otherwise you are suffering from the very blindness of dynamics that you apparently critiicse.
added in is the concept of efficient use. only a myopic Capitalist!!11 would argue that the resources spent beautifying a corner of manhattan is not better spent raising the living standards in some poor place. but hey, who gives a shit about them, right.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On January 04 2008 00:40 Milton Friedman wrote:Show nested quote +On January 03 2008 15:08 BottleAbuser wrote: If we applied the article's logic to the production rates of a pre-industrial revolution world, we would find that the current world status is not possible, because we did not account for advances in production methods.
This is exactly it. I find all too often the importance of technological improvements is neglected when looking at the scarcity of resources issue. Dare I say, politicians should be spending less time negotiating environmental target treaties and more time encouraging co-operation and more funds available to researchers developing the world's technological state. For example, assuming the introduction of increased anti-pollution regulations costs businesses $X a year. Instead of having these increased regulations the government instead taxed businesses receiving revenue of a$X, where a is a constant that may be greater or less than 1 since the efficiency of the tax relative to the increased cost of meeting regulations is unknown (although I would assume a < 1). I would rather $aX be then transferred to research and development than simply raising costs on businesses. The fact world leaders sign something like the Kyoto treaty is a move to gain votes; even if the target are set after their governmental term is over the political party (and the leader) can easily tell the electorate what they've done to help the environment, and similarly, the electorate can easily understand what's happened. Whereas research and development may take, say, a decade before tangible results are seen while in the meantime leaving politicians who support such paths with a relatively less impressive pro-environmental image. i love the way you introduced that sophisticated economic analysis in order to make a point. it worked so well. world must be all so clear to you. let's tax people's income and use that moneyz to cover up for the negligent callousness of capital. nice going there.
|
I question the usefulness of sarcasm in this case. I was under the impression that this was to be a meaningful discussion.
I define "faith" as "belief without supporting evidence." In this case, belief that technology will advance is not faith. Technology is advancing. Look at your computer and compare it to what you used 5 years ago. If it's the same computer, get yourself a new one. NOW! There is plenty of evidence that technology is advancing.
Otherwise, the same argument could be made for growing consumption. Which would make this discussion quite pointless, as we're working on the premise that it is.
Here's another aspect to consider. We have talked about a portion of the population that is consuming a disproportionate amount of resources. What we have not considered (as far as I am aware) is that maybe some portion of the population is producing a disproportionate amount of resources.
I see no problem if the sizes of these populations grow at the same rate. They do not necessarily have to be the same populations, but I hypothesize that they will be. The article states that the consumer population is growing, and lists several countries that I have been hearing are undergoing their own economic revolutions.
Also, I see a problem with the "Money spent on X would be much better spent on Y" argument. You obviously have access to a computer terminal with a connection to the internet. We all do; otherwise, we wouldn't be talking here. I will assume that such access costs some amount of money. Is the benefit of this access more important than, let's say, feeding a starving child for some number of days? Yes; otherwise, you would have already redirected the funds to feeding starving children. The slippery slope argument brings us straight to what you consider a "myopic Capitalist" view.
|
On a lighter note, you could cite Windows Vista as a counterexample to the technological advance trend.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
Also, I see a problem with the "Money spent on X would be much better spent on Y" argument. You obviously have access to a computer terminal with a connection to the internet. We all do; otherwise, we wouldn't be talking here. I will assume that such access costs some amount of money. Is the benefit of this access more important than, let's say, feeding a starving child for some number of days? Yes; otherwise, you would have already redirected the funds to feeding starving children. The slippery slope argument brings us straight to what you consider a "myopic Capitalist" view.
here, the problem is two fold. practicality and guiding concern. the argument is not that we should act as if we are creating utopia, but that we should accept that there are a lot of stuff going wrong, and within the properly traced out limits of our range of choices, choose the right one. two guys doing something bad could either cry or laugh about it, we prefer the crying. admittedly this si a rather nasty trap, the melancholies of idealism, but here is the deal. do what we can, but do so with a commitment to the highest good or whatnot full appreciation of w/e is appreciable.
much of the technological advances you are talking about show the probleml of the simple technology advance=progress view. the making of vista or for that matter a more advanced lawnmower could only occur within a society that has peculiar aims and priorities with corresponding resource allocations. at the moment, it seems that the tendency for high technological development is to serve the next and less important concern on the minds of the affluent. one wonder why economists who are so used to utility curves never use them to make any normative hay out of different consumption baskets. at least somewhat, we'd like to shift this with some positive effort to a direction more suitable to good things for more people.
|
On January 04 2008 08:56 nA.Inky wrote: Zherak's statement above is a prime example of technological fundamentalism. I mean, think of the Christians on the one hand: "whatever happens is irrelevent, Jesus is coming back and all the Christians will be saved." Then think of folks like Zherak: "whatever happens is irrelevent, technology will keep evolving and will solve all problems."
These ideas are rooted in faith, and faith in technology is probably as misguided as any faith, given that the great looming crises are largely a product of technological development. Our power has exceeded our wisdom, and this causes us to act unwisely. The solution - let's ask Zherak.... "more technology! More power!"
Again, it's not that consumption is bad. It's not even that waste is necessarily bad. It's a question of SCALE. The present scale of consumption, production, and waste is staggering - not sustainable. As we speak, the scale is increasing greatly, and there are many poor people who want to jump in and play the modern game - catch the affluenza bug. About 1.5 billion of the Earth's population is in the consumption class, and the Earth is already buckling under this pressure. Add another 6 billion people to the consumption class and then what?
Rhetoric much?
Idiot journalist you are quoting thinks he understands science, and thinks he can make claims on what is impossible. He is wrong, you are wrong. It is easily sustainable. You could sustain present day consumption on nothing but tidal harnesses, christdamnit.
The limit you and your idiot journalist is grasping at is not the theoretical limit or the scientific limit but the present day developmental limit. If we start putting the resources around us to use, 72 billions are nothing.
Go back some 150 years and see what level of comfort the US maintained depending pretty much entirely on its own resources. If you develop the zillion square miles in Africa, Eastern Europe, South America and Asia, this is not impossible.
Go back some 150 years and you could be making the exact same argument as your idiot journalist is doing now, except what the idiot journalist would have claimed 150 years ago to be the limit would be one we have blown past long time ago.
This is not a matter of your bullshit rhetoric technological fundamentalist. If anything, it would be a matter of developmental fundamentalism.
|
On January 04 2008 13:34 BottleAbuser wrote:I question the usefulness of sarcasm in this case. I was under the impression that this was to be a meaningful discussion. I define "faith" as "belief without supporting evidence." In this case, belief that technology will advance is not faith. Technology is advancing. Look at your computer and compare it to what you used 5 years ago. If it's the same computer, get yourself a new one. NOW! There is plenty of evidence that technology is advancing. Otherwise, the same argument could be made for growing consumption. Which would make this discussion quite pointless, as we're working on the premise that it is. Here's another aspect to consider. We have talked about a portion of the population that is consuming a disproportionate amount of resources. What we have not considered (as far as I am aware) is that maybe some portion of the population is producing a disproportionate amount of resources. I see no problem if the sizes of these populations grow at the same rate. They do not necessarily have to be the same populations, but I hypothesize that they will be. The article states that the consumer population is growing, and lists several countries that I have been hearing are undergoing their own economic revolutions. Also, I see a problem with the "Money spent on X would be much better spent on Y" argument. You obviously have access to a computer terminal with a connection to the internet. We all do; otherwise, we wouldn't be talking here. I will assume that such access costs some amount of money. Is the benefit of this access more important than, let's say, feeding a starving child for some number of days? Yes; otherwise, you would have already redirected the funds to feeding starving children. The slippery slope argument brings us straight to what you consider a "myopic Capitalist" view.
just quoting to emphasize that....comparing having "faith" in technology with christian fundamentalism is incredibly fallacious:O
I am not saying we should not worry about these problems and say " its ok we will just let technology solve it LOL" but I think it is wise at this point to realize that advances in technology will probably be our biggest aid when confronting these problems.
Every once in a while there are leaps in technology so huge that it completely eliminates problems or reduces them to little more than annoyance. Putting more money into research of certain key sciences is like a gamble that pays off way better than any realistic conservation effort in the long run. I use gamble loosely because advancements in technology remain very beneficial even when they come the slowest.
While conservation is important and an issue we need to discuss, especially as new technology develops, the fact of the matter is technology will play way more of a role in solving these problems then conserving ever will:o
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
technology is great. we all love technology. pwns them mofos
|
On January 03 2008 12:00 SonuvBob wrote: We require more minerals.
A lot more.
|
A few people seemingly take great offense at mentioning technological fundamentalism. This is sort of what I am talking about - to question technology (not to say technology is bad, but to merely question it) is to the modern person as questioning God was to priests in the past.
But more directly, what people are "calling me on," is not even what I am talking about. I'm not saying that technology won't get advanced - historically it has ONLY gotten more advanced. My point is only that thinking technological advancement is KEY to solving problems is questionable. And it is - no one called me on my comment that most of the present day environmental problems are the result of technology!
The modern environmental problems are largely a result of modern technology.
To believe that the next wave of technology will be the one to fix all the problems that have thusfar been created by technology exemplifies FAITH.
You guys need to recognize what technology does. Technology is created to solve some problem. Cars, to some extent, solve a mobility problem, for example. But what you guys overlook are the unintended consequences of technology. No one disputes that cars move very quickly and, by a certain narrow reckoning, save human energy. But that's not all cars do. They also require us to cover our land with concrete and asphalt, which affects climate, water, and the natural landscape. They create much pollution (smog) which has effects on human health and on global climate. These are not the purpose of the car, but they are consequences of the technology.
They put my grandma on medicine for her heart. The medicine caused her to get asthma. Then they put her on drugs for asthma, which negatively affected her heart, and she had a minor heart attack. Do you see what I am saying here?
Most technology is like this. We solve one problem with a new technology, but the new technology creates new problems.
Even the basic technology like irrigation or tilling can create problems - namely the erosion or degradation of soil, leading to a LOSS of fertile land, and thus food. These technologies were invented and employed in order to INCREASE food supply, but at times the result has been to decrease food supply. (Look at the dustbowl situation in America, during the 1930's.)
Let me be especially clear to those of you who will distort what I am saying: I am not against technology. I am critical of technology, meaning I believe we should examine carefully any technology we might adopt, and not assume that the intended result of using a technology will be the ONLY result. Some technology will be useful and good, and others will be bad - all to varying degrees.
Once again, considering that technology often has unintended consequences, many times creating worse problems than existed to begin with, the belief that some as yet undiscovered technology will miraculously solve everything is irrational faith.
|
I challenge you technological fundamentalists to name technologies that ultimately have helped the environmental situation (I won't say there are none - I'm open to the possibility that some truly have helped). I also challenge you to name technologies that have worsened the environmental situation. Note, it doesn't count to say that putting in pollution control technology in automobiles has helped the environment - such moves are only to compensate for other technology which has worsened the state of the environment, and we still experience a net negative effect on the environment.
Keep in mind the concept of unintended consequences.
Also, when new technologies are adopted, many people habituate to them and take them for granted. No one needed cars or thought about them 200 years ago. Now we have them and they are a "necessity." Consider what affects this kind of habituation to ever increasing lifestyles has on the environment (not to mention social relationships, power relationships, etc.)
|
On January 04 2008 15:20 oneofthem wrote: much of the technological advances you are talking about show the probleml of the simple technology advance=progress view. the making of vista or for that matter a more advanced lawnmower could only occur within a society that has peculiar aims and priorities with corresponding resource allocations. at the moment, it seems that the tendency for high technological development is to serve the next and less important concern on the minds of the affluent. one wonder why economists who are so used to utility curves never use them to make any normative hay out of different consumption baskets. at least somewhat, we'd like to shift this with some positive effort to a direction more suitable to good things for more people.
Good. I like your reasoning here. This is how I read you:
Progress is not neutral. Progress is motion towards a goal. What is the goal?
We should not cling to progress for its own sake. We should constantly analyze our goals and try to work towards goals that are humane, sustainable, etc.
The powerful in society define progress in such a way as to serve themselves (more cars, more homes, more luxury, and more power for themselves!) Unfortunately, the goals of the elite have been adopted by many people who are not served by the same goals (this is something like what Marx would call false consciousness).
Economists are great at drawing fancy diagrams of consumption choices, but in trying to maintain a value free (objective) science, they ignore ethical issues - they do not concern themselves with what might be best for people or the environment. --------------------------- Where this comes in to play is that most people care about the environment (even if on some token, meaningless level.) However, people are also often attached to another set of priorities that ultimately have nothing to do with environmental or social well being (they are attached to what is called "progress," in the sense that they want ever expanding wealth and power.)
What must be recognized is that in some very real ways, "progress" and environmental, social, political well-being are divergent, contradictory goals.
We want more wealth, but at what cost to the environment? At what cost to economic justice?
We want more power, but at what cost to equity and democracy? (At some point, technology reaches a level of complexity that brings it beyond democratic control.)
|
I think we've strayed somewhat from the original topic.
The OP's thesis appears to be thus: Current resource consumption at its current growth cannot be met by current production rates, must be curbed, and will be curbed "if we choose to do so."
My objection to this is that although extrapolated consumption rates cannot be met by current production rates, a growth in production rates will meet the higher consumption rates, and therefore a reduction in our consumption of resources is not evidently necessary.
If it is unreasonable to expect a higher production rate in the future, I do not see how reasonable it is to expect a higher consumption rate as well.
Also, while I do not consider myself a "technological fundamentalist," I must admit that it would be exceedingly difficult to evaluate the impact of certain technologies on the environment, and therefore equally difficult to name technologies of certain impacts. Also, I think it is a weasel argument: the "environment" is bettered or worsened for the accommodation of humans, or for non-human organisms? If for the first, then most technologies would be considered good for the environment. If for the second, then most technologies would be detrimental to the environment (and therefore abandoned?). Would something be considered beneficial if it made the environment more friendly to humans by making it easier to see at night (street lights), but also damaged nocturnal animals' lifestyles? Anyhow, the criteria are not well defined, and it is difficult to discuss with so many ambiguities.
|
Oneofthem says: "look at developmental dynamics going forward. that is what matters, not some theoretical technological utopia. the problem here is simple, whether a certain development is sustainable, and for what social cost. increases in efficient production techniques 'could' lead to less costly consumption, but you have to make the argument that this si likely or will happen, and act appropriately. otherwise you are suffering from the very blindness of dynamics that you apparently critiicse.
added in is the concept of efficient use. only a myopic Capitalist!!11 would argue that the resources spent beautifying a corner of manhattan is not better spent raising the living standards in some poor place. but hey, who gives a shit about them, right. " -------------------- Solid statements here.
Historically we see humanity going ever further out of balance with nature, expanding its power beyond its reason and wisdom. What evidence do we have of people changing? For all the talk of saving the environment, most of what I see are people concerned with IPods and cell phones and cars. (me me me - more wealth for me, please!)
And saving the environment? One is far more likely to hear a politician talk about economic growth - meaning more IPods, cell phones, cars, etc, and these primarily for those who already have far more than they need.
And again - another good point about economics and values. Mainstream economists would argue that if money goes towards something like a new yacht for a wealthy person, rather than towards feeding a starving person, this is the most efficient, useful, and "good" allocation of money possible (assuming a free market.)
Most anyone else would recognize this as insanity. At least I would hope...
So the point here, again, is that regardless of what people say, modern priorities with regard to "progress" often have little to do with helping those in need, or saving the environment.
|
United States22883 Posts
There's far more that have hurt the environment, we all know that. But the goal of technology is not simply "advancement", it's very specific and constantly changing, and generally we have accomplished what we set out to do (although not always, such as the case with explosives.) This is a new goal, so pointing to cars because they've hurt the environment, while unfortunately and incredibly true, does not mean you can point to future cars as a threat to the environment. I'm sure there will be some other negative consequence, but these things are more forseeable now than they ever have been before, and I don't agree with not doing something simply because we are ignorant of the outcome.
Truthfully, I don't think anything will ever be fully solved by technology, only continually pushed back, but that's the nature of evolution and life anyways - there is no perpetual sustination. Wonder drugs like penicillin will eventually be overcome, but they've made the world a lot healthier today and probably within a couple hundred year range, and that's the best anyone can hope to do right now. Thanks to scientists, that forseeable window also continues to grow.
|
Maybe off topic now, but I'll indulge myself and rant on:
Economists ignore ethics because they do not apply to economics. One could argue that they do, because ethical concerns cause legislation that could affect business (like laws against undercutting, the practice of which is considered unethical by most), but in no way does ethics directly affect economics. Therefore, considering ethics in economics is not relevant or useful.
Ideally, all people would be ethical. Many are not. I doubt the efficacy of saying "well, you should be moral" to such people, which is basically what Inky's post appears to propose.
Personally, I think it's silly to talk about cars if you want to talk about ways to curb consumption (or pollution, I'm not quite sure which we're talking about any more). Transportation accounts for less than 15% of greenhouse gas emissions in the US. With current technology (and technology immediately forseeable), cutting this down by reducing consumption would be on a 1 to 1 basis.
Now, consider that agriculture accounts for about 20% of greenhouse gas emissions. The vast majority of this portion is from the livestock industry. We could produce the same effect as halving car usage by reducing meat consumption (just in the US) by 10%. Incidentally, this would also result in surplus grain sufficient to eliminate death by hunger. Everywhere. Or if you want to nitpick, reducing it by 15% and turning 1/3 of the surplus grain into biofuel for distribution of the grain would eliminate world hunger with no additional cost.
Disclaimer: I am vegan, for ethical reasons, and my views may therefore be biased.
|
Jibba says "and I don't agree with not doing something simply because we are ignorant of the outcome."
I am saying we need to be critical, not necessarily conservative (although undoubtedly a more critical view will lead us in a more conservative direction, as we recognize some choices are simply not acceptable).
I think when there is any real question about a technology's safety (not necessarily ignorance, but rather the possibility that something might be really dangerous), we should err on the side of caution (what is known as the precautionary principle.) If we don't know how to truly safely store nuclear waste and ensure 100 percent that we can keep plants from melting down, then it is best to not go down the path of nuclear energy, for example, regardless of its supposed benefits.
We must have criteria for technology... Here is an improvised example: 1 Can everyone use this technology? (is it fair) 2 Can the Earth sustain this technology (for all)? 3 Is this technology safe for humans and other life (does it make us sick? etc)? 4 Will this technology be under democratic control, or will it facilitate technocracy - rule by an elite class of "experts" that do not necessarily respond to "the people?" 5 What social or environmental changes must take place to make use of the new technology, and do these changes meet criteria 1-4?
I am glad you acknowledge that technology has unintended consequences.
|
BottleAbuser - I both want to praise you and call some of what you say into question. I'll do the last first, and the first last.
Economics is a study of how humans use resources. It is not the study of astronomical phenomena (as much as economists have physics envy and whatnot.) It is the study of people. So, for those reasons, I and other intellectuals argue that it is a moral science.
There is no way we can talk about a choice between saving a rainforest or building a bunch of walmarts; between buying a yacht or saving a starving child, as anything but a moral issue. These are moral issues, and economics gets at the heart of this.
You are right, telling people to be moral might not be the most effective thing. But being that I am a pacifist, it is the best I can do. Some people will be convinced, others will not. I do what I can.
Now, to clarify a question you hinted at, we are discussing pollution AND consumption - both are connected.
Last of all, to talk about some pollution issues... First, I mention cars because that is what comes to mind. You are right that raising animals for consumption is a HUGE cause of greenhouse gas emissions - more so than automobile use. No argument from me, and I appreciate that you brought this up - and I am impressed.
If you read my other threads, you will know that I am a vegetarian and tend towards veganism (I've been vegan as well) and that I explicitely advocate a vegan or vegetarian lifestyle. Giving up meat, or at least reducing meat consumption, is a wise choice to make for the environment, for one's health, and for animal rights.
I applaud you for being a vegan. I am impressed.
|
Ah, posting while I was writing eh?
I think we should define what we mean by "saving the environment" now. And while we're at it, we should also clarify what we mean by "nature." And figure out why nature and the environment are so important. Call me stupid and ignorant, but I don't know what the big fuss is.
I imagine that some will talk about water and air pollution by particles, chemicals, or heat. How does this adversely affect us? Let's say that it increases the number of fatal lung, liver, and heart diseases by tens of thousands per year, and destroys the habitats of thousands more fish and aquatic organisms in rivers. I think this is an improvement over previous state. Keep in mind that although for you personally it might be merely inconvenient, it could very well be life-threatening for millions of people to not have factories manufacturing certain items, or power plants supplying them with electricity.
I'll change a few words and turn the question around. Can anyone name technologies that are clearly beneficial or detrimental to human life, considering all consequences of that technology's implementation?
And I truly doubt that economists put labels like "good" or "moral" on economic transactions. More likely they describe it as having a higher probability to encourage further circulation of currency and value. It is pointless to call specialists insane because the results of their science run contrary to your intuition.
|
There are other ways to change peoples' behavior other than talking or violence. Creating economic incentive for what you see as a more moral lifestyle could work. I know that certain people choose vegan products simply because they last longer or cost less.
I'll admit that I'm not very big on economics. But what I know disagrees with a morality-based system. Quoting Wikipedia (because everyone knows Wikipedia is infallible): Economics deals with "the production, distribution, and consumption of goods and services." Which means it describes how people spend money, and to some extent why (greedy agents, etc), but not whether or not it's "good." I just can't see "spend money on X or on Y?" as an economic question when X and Y are not investments made for the purpose of getting some sort of compensation. Yes, it can become a moral question, but not one that economics can or purports to answer.
|
BottleAbuser - can't address your longer post just above just now, but I'll say that there are economists and many social scientists that argue that all social science should not try to be value free. What people so often do not see is that the pretension to objectivity is infact a built in bias that serves very real political and social ends (often inequality and destruction.)
I'm not saying you advocate these things. But I will say that from my perspective (as a student of economics, among many other things) economics absolutely is a moral science, and the fact that the mainstream treats it otherwise is a big problem with very real consequences in the world.
By the way, I appreciate your posts, sincerely. I'll post more later. Take it easy.
|
Hah, I wish I took more time to read the posts I was responding to beforehand.
On the subject of nuclear energy, there is no technical reason to worry about nuclear waste storage. Reactors can work with most "nuclear waste," turning it all into energy and an extremely safe (still technically radioactive, but very safe) end material, whose radiation can be effectively and safely blocked by a sheet of paper. Or your skin.
"Dangerous" nuclear matter is dangerous because it is highly radioactive. However, this means that it has a short half-life (all of that radiation comes from the decay of the radioactive material), and does not need long-term storage. Material that does need long-term storage is not highly radioactive, because otherwise it would have a short half-life and therefore not need long-term storage! Incidentally, the "hot" stuff makes ideal fuel for nuclear reactors, so we shouldn't be burying it, we should be "burning" it!
The actual problem is political: Many European, Asian, and American countries have agreed not to use this sort of reactor, because one of the in-between fuels is weapons-grade plutonium. As off-topic as we've gone, I don't really want to talk about politics, so I'll stop here.
|
I won't argue the nuclear stuff here. I merely brought up nuclear energy to illustrate a point. Many technologies can substitute just fine in the same example. The 20th century was the century of chemicals. So many have been invented, and so many are used - and so many are very toxic. So again, we must carefully evaluate chemical based technology and the use of various chemicals. Americans used to have their lawns sprayed with DDT!!!!! And when Rachel Carson questioned it with her book, Silent Spring (a work which really boosted the environmental movement in the 60's), scientists attacked her, saying DDT was perfectly safe, that she was foolish for questioning it, etc etc. We now know that DDT is very toxic.
I'm trying to illustrate a point, not focus on particular technologies (which would be an exercise that would take millienia).
|
United States22883 Posts
On January 05 2008 03:59 nA.Inky wrote: Jibba says "and I don't agree with not doing something simply because we are ignorant of the outcome."
I am saying we need to be critical, not necessarily conservative (although undoubtedly a more critical view will lead us in a more conservative direction, as we recognize some choices are simply not acceptable).
I think when there is any real question about a technology's safety (not necessarily ignorance, but rather the possibility that something might be really dangerous), we should err on the side of caution (what is known as the precautionary principle.) If we don't know how to truly safely store nuclear waste and ensure 100 percent that we can keep plants from melting down, then it is best to not go down the path of nuclear energy, for example, regardless of its supposed benefits. Those are fairly predictable outcomes and problems, though. We know mishandled nuclear waste has a lot of negative consequences. In the case of cars, or even roads, I don't think there was any way of knowing or even have the slightest understanding of the potential consequences 200 years later to our ozone layer or glaciers. For that, I can't be critical of them. But I agree, for willful ignorance or ignoring known possible consequences, we must be very critical. But scientists, when uninfluenced by politics, are typically excellent in that department.
|
Jibba says "Those are fairly predictable outcomes and problems, though. We know mishandled nuclear waste has a lot of negative consequences. In the case of cars, or even roads, I don't think there was any way of knowing or even have the slightest understanding of the potential consequences 200 years later to our ozone layer or glaciers. For that, I can't be critical of them. But I agree, for willful ignorance or ignoring known possible consequences, we must be very critical. But scientists, when uninfluenced by politics, are typically excellent in that department." ------------------------ When there is any doubt, we really ought to err on the side of caution. If we are ignorant, we must become informed, and as much as possible without investing entire nations in a new technology. Once informed, where there is doubt about the safety and sustainability of a technology (see my five criteria a page back for an example of some tests technologies should pass), the technology should not be embraced. IE, if there is a possibility that X chemical will cause cancer in women, we probably shouldn't go putting that chemical in household cleaning products.
At any rate, we have long since reached a point where the masses are not asked whether they want a new technology or not, or whether it should be adopted. Experts, politicians, and businessmen all make the decisions, and the people are strongly pressured through various means to accept the decisions of the elite.
At any rate, my point remains: the history of technology is a history of unintended consequences. Tech is created to solve problems or make life easier, but it so often creates problems, often problems that are worse than the one the technology was created to solve. So even given that scientists are aware of environmental pressures, I do not have faith (and that's really what it would have to be - faith) that technology can fix our present situation without creating some other dreadful situation.
And, to reiterate, while environmental issues are more on people's minds today than in the past, this is not the same as saying these issues are the priority. Politicians and businesses serve power and wealth first, and people/environment/etc second.
One way power can serve both aims is by marketing "green" products and services. Of course these things don't have to really be green, all that matters is that the masses can be convinced that these things are green. I've no doubt that we will see a lot more green merchandise in the coming years. Of course, it is my strong belief that this will amount to dressing up the same old mistakes in a green image.
|
BottleAbuser says "My objection to this is that although extrapolated consumption rates cannot be met by current production rates, a growth in production rates will meet the higher consumption rates, and therefore a reduction in our consumption of resources is not evidently necessary.
If it is unreasonable to expect a higher production rate in the future, I do not see how reasonable it is to expect a higher consumption rate as well." --------- Correct me if I am wrong here. I believe Jared Diamond was referring to production rates of natural resources, ie lumber. So this is not a situation where one builds more lumber factories. Plant more trees, yes.... but even still, there are limits.
Those limits will indeed limit consumption - greatly. The issue here is that their is some rate at which resources replenish themselves. If we go beyond that rate, we can realize higher gains in th short run. In that case, we are borrowing against the future. What happens is that the pool of resources we draw from will ultimately decrease, thus limiting future consumption.
There is good evidence that this is happening now in the world. I fully expect massive economic crises in the coming decades, where food and water themselves are in short supply (you can read major news papers and studies saying that this is going to start happening - I urge you to look.) --------------------------- BottleAbuser says "I think it is a weasel argument: the "environment" is bettered or worsened for the accommodation of humans, or for non-human organisms? If for the first, then most technologies would be considered good for the environment. If for the second, then most technologies would be detrimental to the environment (and therefore abandoned?). Would something be considered beneficial if it made the environment more friendly to humans by making it easier to see at night (street lights), but also damaged nocturnal animals' lifestyles? Anyhow, the criteria are not well defined, and it is difficult to discuss with so many ambiguities." ----------------------------------- No weasel argument exists here: I've not changed my definition of a word or phrase in order to maintain an argument - and that is what a weasel argument is (changing meanings/definitions). If I have, you can point it out to me.
This dichotomy you set up makes no sense to me. Environment for people or environment for animals? I don't see a distinction. It is common in Western thinking to see the human organism as separate from all other life and all other objects, just as it is common to see the individual as separate from culture, institutions, etc. In short, Western thinking is all about disintegration and atomization - dichotomous thought (this is even said to be part of the warlike attitude of Western thinkers and people in general). I don't see those boundaries. We arise from this Earth and from it's abundance and diversity of life. We are part of this Earth, and part of its systems. We cannot separate ourselves from the well being of the planet. I am very concerned about what happens to animals and other life, and I am also concerned about what happens to us.
As Rachel Carson famously said (paraphrased): "Man is part of the Earth, and any war against the EArth is a war against himself." Our fate is not separate from the rest of life and the total environment.
|
I don' t have numbers, nor did anyone supply any real ones, on the consumption of limited-production resources. Of course, it could very well be that we are over-consuming a truly limited-supply resource, and the buffer will at some point run out with disastrous consequences. Without numbers, it is difficult to evaluate. I do not see strong evidence that we are over-using wood, for example. Deforestation is rampant, but not because people are using too many trees; rather, farmers are using slash & burn techniques to make (very poor) farmland. This may be an example of over-consumption in a different dimension, but I'm convinced that it is more a political than a technical problem. Also, let me point out that many products that in the past used wood-based materials are now using alternative materials, and many more will probably switch over to (more renewable, cheaper) synthetic materials in the future.
I'm a firm believer that technology in itself cannot be a "good" or "bad" thing: the effects of a tool are decided by its operator. A hammer may be considered beneficial to everyone when it is being used to drive nails for construction, but detrimental (at least to non-wielders) if used as a blunt weapon.
Despite this, we can see how technologies have been used in the past, and decide whether or not their use was beneficial or detrimental when everyone's interests are considered:
Antibacterial agents have been used to prevent and treat both potentially deadly and non-deadly sicknesses. In many cases, it prevented death of the treated. In some cases, it bred resistant strains. I argue that fewer people have died from infection by resistant strain microbes than were saved by antibiotics, and this was therefore a good thing. (One could argue that humans are extremely detrimental to everyone else, and therefore their deaths are a good thing, and by extension saving humans is a bad thing, but it's a rather convoluted and weak argument.)
I'm going to assume that microbes don't have interests, and therefore killing them is not ethically undesirable at all. Even with that assumption, that was not very cut-and-dried; other technologies are even more gray.
However, I think the vast majority of technology (from "gut feeling," as I have no data) has been a net benefit. The difficulty of completely evaluating the effects of a technology makes it effectively impossible to collect data and objectively analyze the situation. Of course, I welcome any suggestions for other approaches to this.
|
Also, given the model of solutions creating more problems, I see three possible cases:
The solutions tend to create more or bigger problems than the original problem. In this case, the positive feedback will end our race.
The solutions tend to create fewer or smaller problems than the original problem. Again, positive feedback will act, but this time we'll eventually reach some sort of utopia.
The solutions tend to create problems of equal magnitude to the original problem. In this case, the current world state will be preserved, which is quite acceptable to many people (but personally, not to me).
The biggest problem would be the first case, but (again speaking from faith) I do not believe this is the case. If it is, there is so very little I can personally do about it, so I'll just be along for the downward spiral into escalating problems and disaster. I really hope not, though, and emotionally I feel confident that this will not be the case.
|
BottleAbuser says: "I'm a firm believer that technology in itself cannot be a "good" or "bad" thing: the effects of a tool are decided by its operator. A hammer may be considered beneficial to everyone when it is being used to drive nails for construction, but detrimental (at least to non-wielders) if used as a blunt weapon." -------------------- I'm glad you mentioned this. This is a very common belief, the idea that technology is inherently neutral. Cultural studies and the philosophy of science (the study of scientific thinking itself) can shed a lot of light on this subject (I am just getting into these two fields, so I won't pretend to be very knowledgeable.)
It can be argued that technology is NOT neutral. Consider the 5 criteria I listed on page 2 - I think they point at why technology is not neutral.
Consider atom-bombs. Not even considering their use (which should obviously - I think - be considered insane), it must be recognized that atom bombs do not merely come out of nowhere..... their very existence necessitates a certain kind of scientific/technological elite class, and some kind of political system/control system.
Is the car neutral? The technology of the automobile necessitates that MASSIVE portions of land be covered over by roads and parking lots. These roads and parking lots have environmental effects of their own (they alone raise temperatures and affect how water goes into the land and flows over the surface.) Furthermore, who makes cars? Can anyone produce cars? Can anyone own them? No - social systems are required. Likewise with the aforementioned roads and parking lots - they don't build themselves. In America, roads and parking lots are HIGHLY subsidized by the government, and this is not for your driving pleasure (lolz) - it is for commerce (not neutral!)
Consider time itself, which is a technology. Many cultures have a loose concept of time, but I am referring to time in the Western sense (very rigid time). There are theorists who state that time itself is a system of domination! (Certainly not neutral.) What does time do? It is a way of synchronizing movement. In other words, the purpose of time is to synchronize human activity, directing it to political and social ends. (this might be seen as a good thing, but the point is to recognize that there is a purpose here..... it is not neutral.)
I'm putting this whole thing together sloppily, but what I hope to show is that technologies.... 1) require certain social/political systems (hunter-gatherers don't invent nuclear bombs) 2) focus and direct human behavior in certain directions (if you are a hammer, every problem is a nail.....) 3) often necessitate the use of other technologies, again calling forward a way of life with impacts on human thought, human relationships, and environmental conditions (in positive or negative ways - but not neutral.)
An atom bomb is not neutral. It has a political purpose, even if that is just mutually assured destruction - a form of "security"! Human attitudes/thoughts are imbedded in the very technology!
Trying to boil it down... What I am saying is that life is this massively complex web of connections and relationships. To take a technology (the atom bomb) and try to divorce it from everything else... all those other relationships.... is a useless exercise in abstraction. The reality is that NO technology is without bias.
This bias can be good or bad.
My conception of good involves fostering an abundance and variety of life (climax eco-systems), freedom and cooperation, so I keep these in mind in my critical thinking on politics, technology, and so on.
|
In short, technology is no more neutral than the words we speak. Really, the more I think of it, there is literally no such thing as neutrality - neutrality is a concept that itself is not neutral, it serves a political purpose (masking the real purpose of theories, actions, technologies, for example).
Edit: "Masking the real purpose of theories, actions, and technologies for example" - to this, let me add that we don't use neutrality to mask purpose merely from others, but also to mask our purposes from ourselves!
|
While this thread happily diverges in so many directions, I'll say this too: Ghandi once said that what scared him the most is "the hardness of heart of the educated."
What we so often learn in school is this kind of cold rationality - essentially a schizoid mindset. We learn to truly be nihilistic. This is how politicians can discuss what nuclear victory in a nuclear war might be (losing 200 million and killing 300 million of the enemy, for example) in a calm way. This is how someone can calmly say "well, if we are out of balance with nature, feedback will kill a lot of us off and things will self-correct." This cold rational thinking is supposed to be neutral, scientific, etc, when infact it is a justification for a certain political/social outlook. This is essentially stamping approval on a way of being in the world - a way of being that may result in great destruction.
Humans are condemned to choose. No one is neutral - not me, not you, not anyone. Whatever perspective you apply, whether it be a "rational scientific" perspective, or some other perspective, you must recognize the purpose of your perspective, and its social, political, and, in this case, environmental implications.
|
|
|
|