Quote:
Originally Posted by redpoint5
That's the point sendler is always making; that wealth and consumption are the same thing. Any person who is wealthy is also a large consumer.
The logical conclusion then is that if you want to reduce consumption, there are only 2 ways to go about doing it:
1. Reduce population
2. Reduce wealth
So the environmental "problem" isn't that we aren't all driving EVs and using LED bulbs, it's that we're rich and prolific.
People living in the US are the 1%, including those we consider "low income".
The rate of population growth is in decline, so I tend to believe technology will allow us to live in relatively high standards of living until population naturally peaks; perhaps somewhere around 10 billion. From there we will face the opposite population crisis; aging populations with declining numbers.
In the future, reproduction will be more about making a decision, and less about impulsiveness.
|
I would add energy efficiency as #3.
Some pervert the Jevon's Paradox to argue against this,but even Stanley Jevons was incorrect in his logic concerning efficiency and consumption.
Efficiency can be used as an excuse to just use more,leading to zero overall conservation,but it's conditional.
In 1974,I went from 18-mpg,to 41-mpg overnight,with off-the-shelf technology.
If I could get into a TESLA Model-3,I could be at 170 mpg-e within 6-months.