5.4 Earths!? Environmental footprint calculator results

[Ultralight]

We'd have to up-end the profit uber alles system first--the idea that corporations owe nothing to the country that birthed them, nothing to the citizens whose taxes paid for their infrastructure and subsidies, nothing, certainly nothing to the environment we all live in.

Colossal greed is the sticking point, it seems to me.

Immigration may be the only way our economy will grow, but I'm not sure that's important. If people buy fewer "consumer goods" in this country, corporations can always export them elsewhere. As long as the money keeps flowing. It's really a global problem.

Frugality and simple living must go global then?

[Ultralight]

The carbon footprint is a useless metric for changing human behavior. In fact, it is counterproductive. Yes, we need to be more mindful of our impact on others and the environment. But yes, we also need to continue growth, meaning research and development of promising technology. We once thought moon exploration was silly. How about colonizing Mars? There is no point in being satisfied with less. None.

How will humans fuel and fund such massive operations?

[Williamsmith]

How will humans fuel and fund such massive operations?

Exponential growth in technology....new ideas. A willingness to take risk. We are going to have to accept that as individuals we have short lives. We push the human race into the future. The Earth will be fine. We will continue to explore and exploit.

[Ultralight]

Exponential growth in technology....new ideas. A willingness to take risk. We are going to have to accept that as individuals we have short lives. We push the human race into the future. The Earth will be fine. We will continue to explore and exploit.

How are technology and energy different?

[catherine]

Exponential growth in technology....new ideas. A willingness to take risk. We are going to have to accept that as individuals we have short lives. We push the human race into the future. The Earth will be fine. We will continue to explore and exploit.

We will continue to exploit? The Earth will be fine? The development of the human did fine when it lived cooperatively with nature, with no exploitation. The natural world does not have to be collateral damage in the quest for the next "big step for mankind"

I agree with self-development, I agree in development and growth, but not growth for the sake of growth, and not growth that "exploits"--in fact, Williamsmith, I'm so surprised you said this, that I'd like to ask you for some elaboration. With your background and love for nature, I'm sure I'm not reading you correctly.

We did not create the world. We have inherited a world that had already grown to such prolific diversity and beauty before we even got here. It's a true miracle. And what has happened over the past 150 years with our technology--our exploitation? The world has given to us, and it's not wise to just take from it. We are poisoning soils, so that arable land becomes desert, we are poisoning plants and destroying habitats, killing off species at record speeds. The balance of nature is out of whack. This is not our planet to mess up and throw in the recycling basket while we go find another.

I am not against new ideas and creative use of our hearts and brains. Pushing the human race into the future can mean new strides in many things--creative ways to live in peace and prosperity--creative ways to stem the consequences of human greed. It doesn't have to mean exploitation.

[Ultralight]

I become rather dubious when I ask how we'll fuel and/or fund major projects (like terraforming Mars) and I get this answer: "Dude...we've got, like technology!"

[JaneV2.0]

Frugality and simple living must go global then?

That would seem a logical endpoint, I guess. We can get rid of massive waste and plunder (and stabilize population), and start from there.

[Ultralight]

That would seem a logical endpoint, I guess. We can get rid of massive waste and plunder (and stabilize population), and start from there.

I wonder how open people would be to this globally. I am part of a simple living group in my area. The group is almost entirely retirees -- aged 55-70, give or take a half-decade (I am considered young because I am 36). They talk about how people should consider going car-lite or car-free, how people should have fewer children (perhaps none), how people should use less water/oil/gasoline/resources of all kinds, quit "pleasure-shopping," etc.

But these folks grew up and came of age in an era of American triumphalism and mass abundance. So to younger people -- ones with Master's degrees who work at Starbucks -- this sounds like: "We baby-boomers used up all the good stuff. Now you all must be wise how you consume the crumbs we left you."

I fear that many in the third world who want to drive SUVs, buy all sorts of stuff on Amazon, have 4 kids, jet-set to sweet vacation spots, etc. will have a similar reaction: "You got yours. Why can't I get mine?!"

But all this reminds me of that old maxim: "Everyone knows money can't buy happiness, but they insist on finding out themselves."

Thoughts?

[catherine]

I fear that many in the third world who want to drive SUVs, buy all sorts of stuff on Amazon, have 4 kids, jet-set to sweet vacation spots, etc. will have a similar reaction: "You got yours. Why can't I get mine?!"

But all this reminds me of that old maxim: "Everyone knows money can't buy happiness, but they insist on finding out themselves."

Thoughts?

You are right. There's a really good book by Gary Cross called "An All-Consuming Century: Why Consumerism Won in Modern America" Very well-written and researched, but it pretty much stated what you said. People need and want tangible signs of success, especially if they are coming out of subsistence and into comfort and relative wealth. So this is the nouveau riche and the waves of immigrants and countries in the Third World.. the pattern you describe of Aspire, Acquire, Satisfy, Reject is a predictable one.

The book had literally no insights for how this might change in the future, which I found to be kind of disappointing. You could probably trace the same patterns back to Greece and Rome and the Enlightenment and the Tower of Babel and all other rise/fall historical precedents.

[Ultralight]

You are right. There's a really good book by Gary Cross called "An All-Consuming Century: Why Consumerism Won in Modern America" Very well-written and researched, but sadly it pretty much stated what you said. People need and want tangible signs of success, especially if they are coming out of subsistence and into comfort and relative wealth. So this is the nouveau riche and the waves of immigrants and countries in the Third World.. the pattern you describe of Aspire, Acquire, Satisfy, Reject is a predictable one.

The book had literally no insights for how this might change in the future, which I found to be kind of disappointing. You could probably trace the same patterns back to Greece and Rome and the Enlightenment and the Tower of Babel and all other rise/fall historical precedents.

"Aspire, Acquire, Satisfy, Reject" -- Whoa! Mind is blown! That is really it, condensed.

This was a topic of discussion at one of the Columbus Minimalists meetings I attended last year. There were a few people from the working-poor class and them some from the upper-middle class at the meeting. The working-poor seemed to have a harder time convincing themselves to let go and minimize, even though it made sense to them logically. The upper-middle class folks seemed more at ease about letting go.

I was the anomaly. I grew up working poor but I really never went too far with my acquiring. Since I was a kid I felt like having time was better than having stuff. Now, I don't think that I am special or anything great because I always kind of knew this, and I am not saying I haven't bought some stuff I regretted (pricey archery equipment, for instance). What I became curious about during the minimalist meeting discussion was why. Why did I not need to go through the predictable cycle like most people seem to?