Even if we could consume our waste, things wouldn't be that great. Think of all the factories, powerplants, natural resources we blow out of the ground, the impact of heavy machinery on the earth at all these sites, the toxic materials that are a byproduct of these things that pollute streams, rivers, ground water and mean people can't drink from there anymore.
That's unavoidable, but if we do nothing at all it will only be worse. I say we aim for efficiency.
True. Things are better now, but back then you were free to do what you wanted with your land, regardless of environmental impact. A lot was still unknown - cadmium pollution, toxicity of coal bings, etc. A lot of damage remains from early industry. Former steel works sites are sitting there, but it isn't economically viable to clean the land up and build houses on it for example. Industry was great in social and local economic terms, but an environmental rapist.
We have nano technology, we also have genetic engineering, we can design bacteria to consume our waste, clean our toilets, sewers and purify our water, we can apply nano technology to turn trash into fuel, we can use biofuels, or synthetic fuels, we have more options than I could ever think of, but collectively if all minds were thinking about how to become efficient we'd be able to solve most of these problems within our lifetime, maybe even within a generation. It might take hundreds of billions or even trillions of dollars, but we obviously have the money, do we want to spend it?
None of those are economically viable and who would want to live underground? The environmental cost would be pretty spectacular, too. Blasting holes into the ground generally isn't good. Building under water would almost certainly disrupt marine life, cause damage to plants/fauna and pollute the water. It would probably output heat into the water and if there were enough underwater houses, the change in temperature could wipe out species.
These things arent economically viable because we aren't trying to be efficient. We have billions of third world labor who could be used to build underground houses, both to live in, and to sell, and people could work on it 24/7, non stop, every day. Who would like to live underground? I wouldnt mind living underground, it's just where you sleep, it's not like you have to stay undergruond ALL the time, in fact I think living underground would ultimately be more efficient in almost every way, it would save on heating costs, it would be more efficient for transportation, it would be more efficient for the environment, it's not like you have to cut down as many trees when you can build underground. Yes it would take a lot of labor, but we have unlimited labor already, and we arent using it, so labor is not the issue anymore.
The question was: "Should we care what the world is going to be like in 200 years?"
I took that to mean standard and quality (enjoyment/lack-there-of) of life and state of the environment. I've stayed in a small 1st floor flat with no garden in London in summer and it was fucking awful. I wouldn't wish that on anyone. It seems to be the way things are going more and more though - less space for a higher price. It's depressing living in a tiny space. Surely this isn't conducive to productivity? Shouldn't we be doing everything to make life more enjoyable?
Yes it's important to have quality of life, but we have to first have a stable species, a species that can survive and get along with itself. Our misery is generated by us. Building more entertainment devices and "things" will not help, it 's what fuels materialism, instead people need to be inner happy, meaning satisfied with less things, and with each other.
Your garden might not have sufficient drainage because the builders decided to build on a marsh. Pretty much all of the decent land has been taken up. That's why you get suburban sprawl. The only places left to build are the shit parts that nobody wanted when they had a choice the first time around. The marshes, an old coal field, the flood plain, etc.
Right, so more and more people are born who will want things, like cars, big tv's, etc. The current levels are too much for the earth. We take the metals, materials, oils, gases, quicker than it can replenish them. If there's more people, everyone still wants cars, what can we do? The car manufacturers aren't going to turn around and say "no, sorry, we can't sell you a car". Cars are recycled, but again there are more and more people that will need more and more cars, so it doesn't balance. It isn't sustainable.
Whoever said cars are efficient? It's not as simple as because more and more people are being born that the world is inefficient, the world would be just as inefficient if less people were born. The fact that more people are born makes the world unstable because people are being born faster than we can make the world more efficient, we can't even make use of the billions in the third world before theres billions more, thats the problem, it's the rate, and the inefficiency, at least in my opinion. I think in theory it's possible for us to be efficient enough, but likely not with these people, and not in the current generation. If things stay exactly the same for another generation, all while population increases, yes we have to worry about the earth being used up and burned out. This will happen not because of simply the people, but because of how society is designed to promote materialism. It's possible that some people won't mind cutting down consumption, but this is impossible when society forces people to get a full time job. Maybe if people had the option to not have to work so hard, maybe less people would consume so much.
Yes, we have choices individually. It all comes down to money though. Most people will go for the cheaper option and many will be ignorant to the environmental consequences, just not care or won't be able to afford it even if they wanted to. e.g. Walmart might sell plastic coathangers for $0.99. Plastics made from crude, processed using coal, transported using oil and petrol across China to a factory, then shipped half way around the world to the U.S. Whereas you could probably buy some locally made wooden coathangers for $2.00. Alright, it's not a great example because a tree got chopped down, but you can see that the average joe (myself included) would go for the cheaper ones without thinking about it. It's ingrained in us all. We 'deserve' to get all these things we want at the lowest possible price. And we're saying fuck the world in the process.
Yes you are correct. Many people, maybe most people, will be ignorant and not ever change. This does not mean that no one will want to change, I think people do want to change, I think lifestyle can be modified, I think people feel a need to have a community again, and people WANT to have sustainable environment, it's just the wrong people who want it, or it's just at this time not optional for most people. People have to survive, and when you ask a person to get a degree and then work 8 hours every day, all they really have time left for is to buy "things", because to do things takes more time and thats the true cost. It's the 8 hour workday, perhaps if people only worked 4 hours a day and we just hired more people, then people would actually have the time to enjoy life.
We want to trash the earth for future generations? I don't think most people consciously want to. Many are ignorant and may change their mind after some education, but I think it's unfair to say most people want to make a mess of the world. It would take many years to change peoples thinking enough to make a difference and probably hundreds before less economically developed countries got with the programme.
You are correct, maybe they just dont' care about the future. Some people live in the moment. The problem is, people who do see the future, they know some of the situations we will face are completely unavoidable, theres nothing we can do, and some people only wake up at the last possible moment. This is usually how it is. I don't know why you say it would take hundreds of years for younger countries to go sustainable, all evidence seems to point to developing countries being ahead of us. China is investing a fortune and at least attempting to make changes before it's too late, you are right they are changing too slow, but they are doing something, Africa and the others, they follow the leaders, so whoever takes the lead should be a super power, or a country powerful enough to lead. You cannot expect Africa to lead here, as if anyone would buy African products, I mean we don't even trade with Africa, China might take the lead and then trade with Africa and the third world, and Europe might take the lead and eventually it will spread to America, otherwise I don't know. All I know is, the current way of life is obviously unsustainable, it's as plain as day.
People choose blindly. Most of them know no better. It's in the interests of multinationals, governments and those involved in certain industries not to tell people they pollute, they're gauging holes that are miles deep out the earth and doing other nasty things. People just don't think about it.
Actually it's not really in the interest of multinationals or governments in the long term, only in the short term, and thats the point. We have to show how it's more profitable by far to clean and protect the planet than ot destroy it. I mean really, once a planet is destroyed, economic activity either stops as we slowly go extinct, or we have to clean it up, why not start cleaning it up now?
Yes, I agree. If things are to change for the better, we need to collectively choose a more efficient way of living. I don't see it happening though, do you?
The ideas exist, if we choose for it to happen collectively it will happen, but it's not really a matter of peasants making choices or consumers making choices, it's more of a matter of the top 1% deciding it's in their best interest. Once that happens, then the time will come to use all that excess money to clean the earth not our of chairty, or care, but because it's in their own best interest to have a clean earth.
People want things to stay the same, but none of it is sustainable. Ideally people would realise this, but I've got a feeling only once the shit hits the fan the people will take note.
Exactly. All I can say is, make your bets, buy your stocks, profit from what you know is going to happen, and then profit off the reconstruction.
Maybe we should have listened to the elders, but then we'd never have progressed. Maybe it would be better that way, or maybe it wouldn't?
Now that we're here, we need to progress more, but in a different direction. Everything should be sustainable and I'm sure it can be. There's enough of us to think of and find ways to do things. Personal sacrifice is the main problem though. People just aren't willing if it involves their life being made a little harder.
We would have progressed, it would have been much slower, but maybe the elders were focuse don spiritual progression and not just technological. If your technology surpasses you too much you collapse. You look at the ancient societies and they lasted a lot longer than ours. It seems, the secret to lasting a long time is to progress in the ways which are based on spiritual need and practical need. Tribal society, and ancient society did progress, but they progressed in ways which made life more enjoyable and simple. We are progressing in ways which makes life more complex and harsh, we work more than ever, we go to more school than ever, and the world is more complex than ever. Wouldnt you rather dance all day, and do just enough work to wake up the next day and do it again? It might not cause you to progress to the moon as fast, but obviously we arent ready to be on the moon if we can't even colonize space and get off planet earth as a species, maybe we did progress a bit too fast in some ways.
You're right. I guess it comes down to low prices and vast choice in supermarkets. Would anybody be willing to sacrifice these things? (I'm not sure I could) Imported fruit and vegetables would be hard to live without for me.
I'm smart, I care about quality. The age of craftmanship will return once people focus on quality instead of cheap. The cheap people will eat cheap food, gain bad health, and likely die. Nothing cheap is usually better, and cheap food is not a good deal, you don't save, it costs more than quality food.
I don't have the willpower/balls/non-conformity... er, I dunno, to start an eco-village. I couldn't live like that. I'm part of the problem, but there has to be a decent compromise. I want this standard of living
or fuck the world. It's that simple
The standard of living in a villege would be higher, your quality of life would be higher. That's just it, you have to understand, clean air, clean water, good health, and more space, thats usually what people wanted when they moved out into the suburbs, to get out of the city.
