Hi Kelly,
the iphones, blackberries, laptops etc. that you mention are forming a
NEW source of highly toxic waste (e-waste), that is shipped to africa,
india and china, where barefooted pickers go through to extract
circuits. New technology = increased problems here.
If western governments had the cojones, they'd insist upon reuse and
recycling these. But... the hardware is now made in the third world,
and how would companies be "profitable" if people didn't replace their
cool hardware for the new, latest ubercool versions ? That takes
political will to enforce, and an enlightened public to support this,
and maintain and repair their old hardware.
the following video on youtube beautifully illustrates the chain of
resources and impacts of ANY product.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gLBE5QAYXp8&feature=fvw
You're also right in that third world environmental pollution,
sanitation and indeed, population growth are huge problems, that need
strong political will to tackle. But therein lies the weakness of a
democracy, it is rendered powerless if the bulk public are unaware.
comes down to education...as there will always be greedy growth
mongerers wishing to line their own pockets.
cheers
amartya
Quoting Kelly Stettner <[email protected]>:
Wayne: I love your enthusiasm and support for the "sparks" that
ignite conversation and imagination!
Joe: Thank you for your "humble opinion," you invite me to clarify
and ask more questions. You note two points about economic growth:
1. "Economic growth", as commonly used, means that every year the
human species creates more "economic activity" than the year before
(fueled by growth in both population and per-capita consumption).
2. "Economic activity" inevitably involves consumption of resources,
so that means every year we convert more land to human use,
generate more electricity, cut more trees, mine more minerals and
fuels, manufacture more goods, produce more pollution, catch more
fish, etc. So clearly there has to be a limit at some point.
Joe, Since I'm not an economist, I must ask questions in order to
understand. I see what you're saying in both of the above points;
unlimited "taking" is short-sighted and self-defeating. However,
can the growth and activity you describe not be coupled with
activities that replenish what we consume? We cut trees and mine
the earth ~ but we can also replant and learn ways to harness the
energy we need from a variety of resources. I know that much of our
technology seemed like science fiction just ten or twenty years
ago. iPhones, blackberries, laptops ~ even digital watches were
fantasy before they became reality. Is there reason to believe we
can't figure out how to replenish the resources we use, use them
more efficiently, engage in utilizing other resources we hadn't
tried before (Sea-floor vents? Algae? Kudzu or Japanese knotweed?
Something on Mars on the moon?), and find ways to lessen our impact
on the planet? Green roofs,
companion gardening, rain barrels, etc are all low-tech, old ideas
that could be just the beginning ~ and could also fuel the economic
growth of our society. Businesses are cropping up all over the
place to explore these ideas.
I also see economic growth in terms of those nations with big
problems: I'm thinking about improving pollution and sanitation and
waste issues in places like Africa and India and China.
Environmental degradation isn't just a Western problem; I think it's
even more critical of an issue in less-developed areas of the
world. Change in those places will take more than a few years,
it'll take a change in government before any real environmental
issues are recognized and addressed. The issues of population,
sanitation, poverty and pollution in those areas of the world are
far more complex than I can understand at this point in my life, but
I feel strongly that the developed nations need to recognize that
Third World pollution & waste are a huge "elephant in the room."
A few more cents' worth,
Kelly Stettner
Director
Black River Action Team
www. BlackRiverActionTeam. org
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 2009 20:26:38 -0700
From: Wayne Tyson <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: ESA position on sustainable growth
Forum:
I find myself in agreement with almost all "sides" of this discussion; it is
healthy, stimulating, alive--as it should be.
I am greatly encouraged that this Forum, fine as it is, is undergoing
likewise a process of refinement, and I welcome the array of voices that
provide great illuminating sparks.
Gratefully,
WT
"'Tis friction's brisk rub that provides the vital spark!" --Unknown
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 2009 09:21:12 -0700
From: joseph gathman <[email protected]>
Subject: What's wrong with growth, (was: ESA position on sustainable growth)
Kelly Stettner wrote:
Why does growth have to be viewed as "bad"?
Kelly - since you asked, here's why the original proposers targeted
economic growth as the problem (as I have understood it):
1. "Economic growth", as commonly used, means that every year the
human species creates more "economic activity" than the year before
(fueled by growth in both population and per-capita consumption).
2. "Economic activity" inevitably involves consumption of resources,
so that means every year we convert more land to human use,
generate more electricity, cut more trees, mine more minerals and
fuels, manufacture more goods, produce more pollution, catch more
fish, etc. So clearly there has to be a limit at some point.
Economists and politicians claim that some economic growth doesn't
involve consumption. This may be true, but the examples they give
are debatable, and they still can't show how the entire economy can
grow without growth in resource consumption. So far all we have is
big claims and hopeful words. The neoclassical-economic world even
gave us Julian Simon and others who denied the existence of ANY
limits to natural resources. This is not a crowd in which I can
have any confidence.
Just my humble opinion,
Joe
Department of Biology, University of Miami
www.bio.miami.edu/asaha
