Quote:
Originally Posted by redpoint5
At what level of economic prosperity, and what is considered "sustainable"? There are zero things in the universe that are infinitely sustainable. Any notion of sustaining then must include the standard (per capita wealth, for instance) and the duration (x number of years).
Sure, but then any behavior (including consumerism) at the core isn't a thinking activity. To dismiss reproduction as a special kind of non-thinking activity in comparison to all the others is arbitrary. It's a way to frame the conversation as group A good, group B bad.
Good thing we don't live in history. Instead we live now, in the most peaceful period of time known to humankind. War and the associated plunder were known by all peoples.
The exception doesn't falsify the rule.
... and those facts are based on their subjective opinion of what a cost is. Any decision ever made carries with it infinite opportunity cost. It collapses an infinite universe of possibility down to a concrete reality.
Funny, there's a famous hockey stick chart that implies a relationship between 2 things based on how closely they track each other. I'll likewise provide these charts:
Not saying correlation = causation, but they seem to be very related.
The hope of decoupling wealth from fossil fuel consumption in the future is not the same as reality today. Dreams are not substitutes for reality.
So some people in the world agree on an arbitrary definition of developed/developing, and I should respect that because? The UN is worse than garbage based on their constantly being wrong about most things, especially with regard to calling evil good, and good evil.
Now, is littered with billions of people who have never been better off than any other time in history. Seems to suggest some good decisions had been made.
I'll ask for example nations. I wonder if any of that is facilitated by oil wealth, diminutive size, and relative homogeneity (to help filter out the potential landmine examples)?
My simplified understanding of this whole post is white = bad, all other colors = good, regardless of the impact to the environment. |
The best scenario would be a seamless transition away from fossil-fuels,as is presently underway,maintaining essentially the status quo as far as current standards of living,based upon emerging renewables as they eclipse fossil-fuels,over a 30-year time frame,in accord with scientific recommendations.
'Sustainability' as I understand it's use in today's lexicon would address providing present goods and services without the net,degrading effects,presently identified with respect to 'business as usual'
Gini Coefficient addresses distribution of wealth.That data is available,updated regularly,as the statistics are completed and become available.
Reproductive activity would have to be addressed on a case-specific basis.I can tell you of a man with 14 mentally retarded children,whom when asked why he was attempting to impregnate his wife again responded,'I'm gonna keep goin' until I get me a good one!' Such is the mind of one American.
As far as peaceful,that would be a regional phenomena.
By definition,the exception proves the rule.The exception does falsify the rule.
Externalities are quantifiable 'facts' which only exist for economists courageous enough to include them in the calculus.Only a scoundrel/prostitute would wittingly omit them from the spreadsheet.As is the common practice of 'Chicago School economists.'
We want to be very specific when we use the word 'reality.' It gets in the way for many in business,education,and politics.
I'll caution you with respect to some of the graphs.Some are generated by people of whom I could fine no charitable words with which to describe.They pretend a universal truth,when in fact,are extremely contextual,without the context openly shared,used in a manner to deceive.Replacing 'today's' or 'current' energy isn't even part of the issue.Arguing about 'TODAY' is not germane to the energy discussion.It's the last bastion of the coward.If we get rid of fossil-fuels,we only need 1/3rd of current 'primary' energy.And we're only going to build out for another 2-billion people,so there is an 'end' to energy growth in sight.
Certainly,there;s no question of about what fossil-fuels have done for us,but energy is energy,it's source agnostic.A Btu is a Btu,whether it comes from coal or a solar panel.A kWh is a kWh whether it comes from coal,natural gas, or a sunbeam.Your car,to anthropomorphize,doesn't give a tinker;s damn if it runs on gasoline or wind-derived electricity.No where is the physics of the universe do pistons have a stranglehold on mobility.
'Better off' is a very subjective,non-scientific use of language.I try not to use words like that,they're indefensible.
I don't pay any attention to the UN.I recommend you do the same.
I wouldn't use oil and wealth in the same sentence.There are just too many pitfalls when you put this language under a microscope.The USA may never recover the costs associated with Middle East petroleum.In college,in 1976,the US taxpayers were still paying benefits to family survivors of the US-Mexican War.
Wounded Warrior Project has to go on the air everyday,begging for money to help support veterans injured in our various Mesopotamian campaigns.
As to white people,we're forbidden to discuss here at Ecomodder,what would be necessary to flesh out a proper accounting.