"All hands on deck!" Even if we halved the global population today we would still need to deal with many of the same basic issues regarding population, resource, and environment.
Growth is inherent in our economic systems. If no growth, depressed economy. That's just how the gears of capitalism are forged. Thus, the inevitable conflict between the natural world and the human economy is obvious. The author of the article states, "But our rate of use must be confined within the regenerative and absorptive capacities of the ecosystem." And, "Once the economy is constrained in aggregate scale to stay within the limits imposed by the ecosystem, we could then fine-tune its allocative efficiency by internalizing remaining external costs into market prices." OK, and how does he propose we do this? Laws passed by our ecologically conscious congress? Even if we could get to that point, we're just one country. China, India, etc.? Furthermore, who (what human construct) decides what the limits of our ecosystem are? A team of elite scientists and policy makers whom all the politicians have full trust in to set the "limits" of their economy. Sarcasm intended. And Aaron, I love how you call Idiocracy a documentary! I can honestly and humbly say I don't know what is going to help us in the place we are in right now apart from a massive global shift in consciousness on such a deep level as to permeate our fundamental aspect of being on this planet. But for now, "All hands on deck!" Thank You, Matt Neidenberg www.greener50.com co-founder | executive -Growning Our Eco-conomy through Community > On Sep 25, 2013, at 6:57 AM, "Aaron T. Dossey" <[email protected]> wrote: > > Some of you may be interested in this documentary: > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idiocracy > > >> On 9/25/2013 12:40 AM, Martin Meiss wrote: >> Thanks for the respones, guys. I am glad to learn that the "perceived ban" >> is not quite as thorough as it seemed to me. >> >> I realize that historically most political attempts at population control >> have been essentially racist, or at least ethnically biased. Basically, >> people advocating that some other group ought to control THEIR population.. >> (This is a rather close parallel to how eugenics movements have mostly been >> about controlling the reproduction of people who are "undesirable" because >> of their race or economic status.) I also realize how hypocritical it is >> for people in countries with huge per-capita resource consumption to >> suggest that other countries ought to limit THEIR resource consumption. >> >> Here in North America the largely European-derived population denuded the >> forests, ruined the soils, clogged the rivers and slaughtered the wildlife >> in a virtual centries-long orgy of wasteful destruction. On the one hand, >> that might mean those of us who inherit this legacy are in a very poor >> moral position to lecture other continents on how they ought to conserve >> their resources. On the other hand, perhaps we can hope that others will >> learn from our mistakes. >> >> I have read about the so-called demographic transition: how liberation and >> education for women, reduced infant morality, economic security for the >> elderly, and other factors, lead to couples voluntarily reducing family >> size, thus slowing population growth. Presumably projections that show the >> human population levelling off are taking this into account. >> >> But I wonder how reliable the demographic transition is in the face of >> religious dogma and ethnic rivalries. I don't know if it is true, but I >> have read that religious teachings regarding birth control have caused >> Holland, and perhaps other countries, to shift from majority Protestant to >> majority Catholic populations. Does such a shift not lead people to >> perceive themselves as being in a demographic war, with various ethnic or >> religious groups trying to out-breed each other? Will this not cause >> political and religious "leaders" to fight against the amelioration of >> conditions that lead to the demographic transition? >> >> I realize I'm jumping around a bit here, but I'd really like to hear more >> discussion of these points. >> >> Thanks. >> >> Martin >> >> >> 2013/9/24 Angus R. Chen! <[email protected]> >> >>> Martin, >>> >>> I get the frustration with the perceived gag rule on population control, >>> but to be fair politicians are unable to discuss it for a reason. Either >>> way, I think we all understand that overcrowding and the growth of the >>> human population beyond the carrying capacity of the Earth is a problem. >>> But there are, in my opinion, very few options for population control that >>> are ethical. The only one that really comes to mind is the voluntary >>> human extinction >>> movement<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voluntary_Human_Extinction_Movement>, >>> which submits that human beings stop making babies to end the human race.. >>> Even that one is controversial for many people. I, for one, would prefer to >>> find other alternatives to sustainable human life before aggressively >>> seeking population control. But, if anyone wants to dive into that can of >>> worms, you're more than welcome to. >>> >>> On another note, I think Herman Daly's essay is pretty interesting, as his >>> assertion that the economy needs to emulate the ecosystem. But, I would >>> also say it's all fine and good to say that we ought to have an economy >>> that operates in a "stable state" on a finite flow of energy. The reality >>> is that it's difficult to have such a sustainable economy when current >>> economic infrastructures and systems are flawed. >>> >>> Anyway, just my two cents, but the essay ignores a lot of important >>> caveats: what is the mechanism for conforming the economy to the confines >>> of a finite ecosystem? Daly says that current economic theory about >>> internalizing negative or positive externality costs (via taxes/cap and >>> trade/what have you) is a pipe dream. So... what's next? (also something I >>> somewhat disagree with, since incorporating externality costs can shrink >>> the economy.) Even Daly, with his last sentence, seems to throw up his >>> hands and say, "well, fuck it, there's clearly no good or even plausible >>> political or economic solution at this point." >>> >>> >>>> On 24 September 2013 20:52, Martin Meiss <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> >>>> I'm tired of people expressing deep thoughts about sustainability and >>>> "green" this and "green" that and steady-state economics and never once >>>> mentioning limiting the human population. I realize that people running >>>> for public office dare not mention population control, but does the ban >>>> extend to scientists and economists? >>>> >>>> Martin M. Meiss >>>> >>>> >>>> 2013/9/24 Rob Dietz <[email protected]> >>>> >>>>> This short essay by Herman Daly describes the political ramifications of >>>>> approaching the ecological limits to economic growth: >>>>> http://steadystate.org/growth-and-laissez-faire/ >>>>> >>>>> Thanks, >>>>> Rob >>>>> -- >>>>> Robert Dietz >>>>> Author, ENOUGH IS ENOUGH - http://steadystate.org/enough-is-enough/ >>>>> Editor, DALY NEWS - http://dalynews.org > > > ATD of ATB and ISI > -- > Aaron T. Dossey, Ph.D. > Biochemistry and Molecular Biology > Founder/Owner: All Things Bugs > Capitalizing on Low-Crawling Fruit from Insect-Based Innovation > http://allthingsbugs.com/about/people/ > http://www.facebook.com/Allthingsbugs > https://www.facebook.com/InvertebrateStudiesInstitute > 1-352-281-3643
