Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

CRH

(1,553 posts)
19. Population vs Consumption, ...
Mon Jan 14, 2013, 06:56 PM
Jan 2013

Both make our future unlivable. Technology has helped stretch the existence a couple of centuries, but sustainability passed, with retrospective vision, 1900 or so, give or take a few decades.

The consumption of the 'first world', ... duh ... are you typing on a computer and driving to the market, ... is ridiculous; if we chose to allow the second and third worlds, to reproduce as they did. If you need a tongue and cheek 'smily', stop reading now.

The fact the reproduction 1950 - 1990 was allowed to happen after we knew better, then exercising the audacity of 'two cars in every garage', (Eisenhower), only to be upstaged by two family earners to ensure more consumption (Reagan), then globalization to ensure the low cost per item of consumption, (Clinton), then the relaxation of credit rules to allow the middle and lower classes mountains of debt, to consume more, (Bush 2) !!! Excuse me, but we knew enough to stop the charade long before just a generation in the past.

Our scientists have known the problems we face for many decades. In the 1950's warning of the CO2 blanket were surprisingly accurate. Population as a problem, has been noted in our best Universities since the 50's - 60's, MIT and others. Scientific studies could not impress the politics of consumption and profit. Say what you will, say what you may, ... we knew. It was profitable to ignore and the silent acquiesce derived from the middle class aphrodisiac of the comfort of consumption, trumped the science and our collective common sense; delivering us to rewarding greed while nurturing ignorance.

If your are typing on a computer and drive a car, blame your parents, then yourself, then your refusal to capitulate, here and now, to what is needed; no more fossil fuels, no more cars, no more computers, ... no lights after dark.

We are all guilty, of snuffing out our future, it is in our genetics; demonstrated by our instincts, our social learning, our desires, and our actions; even after we know the consequences, of the next sentence we type.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

The planet is not in lousy shape. Cary Jan 2013 #1
"Planet" is a shorthand for the biosphere. GliderGuider Jan 2013 #5
I meant only to highlight our own arrogance and stupdity as a species. Cary Jan 2013 #11
Oh yes. I know what we are. GliderGuider Jan 2013 #12
Ah, the big picture. wtmusic Jan 2013 #6
"The problem of industrialization" - not accepting your premise. wtmusic Jan 2013 #2
Well, there you go then! GliderGuider Jan 2013 #3
That's the best you can do? wtmusic Jan 2013 #4
I see no point in arguing - would I be able to change your opinion? GliderGuider Jan 2013 #7
Well, I try to keep an open mind. wtmusic Jan 2013 #9
Yeah, I got reactive in my reply there, sorry. GliderGuider Jan 2013 #10
"At least until some other source provides us with a better power return..." NoOneMan Jan 2013 #14
That feels a lot like the crux of the dilemma to me. nt GliderGuider Jan 2013 #17
If it makes you feel any better, GliderGuider Jan 2013 #8
Agree. We should have powered the industrial revolution with fairy powder NoOneMan Jan 2013 #13
Here's the problem as I see it GliderGuider Jan 2013 #15
If civilization is not, why are we here today and why can't we stop it? NoOneMan Jan 2013 #16
I think that's the thing most people don't understand. GliderGuider Jan 2013 #18
Oil powered the industrial revolution? wtmusic Jan 2013 #21
Sorry, I meant to type "fossil fuels" NoOneMan Jan 2013 #22
I know...oil, coal, nuclear, all that progress shit. wtmusic Jan 2013 #23
Define progress NoOneMan Jan 2013 #24
I'd have to pick "B" wtmusic Jan 2013 #25
I'm not sure how much we have made then (if any at all) NoOneMan Jan 2013 #27
Life expectancy is a pretty good indicator of the human condition wtmusic Jan 2013 #28
I don't really think that has a clear relationship to happiness and suffering. NoOneMan Jan 2013 #29
Google "life expectancy well-being" and you will find overwhelming evidence wtmusic Jan 2013 #30
I'm not really using an established western definition of "well-being" to be honest NoOneMan Jan 2013 #31
I'm using the UN's definition. wtmusic Jan 2013 #32
Are they the authority on human happiness? NoOneMan Jan 2013 #33
Please, define happiness however you like. wtmusic Jan 2013 #34
So your answer is "yes"? All our improved happiness (if we have any) is worth climate change? NoOneMan Jan 2013 #35
Yes, it's worth a certain amount. wtmusic Jan 2013 #36
Then screw climate change. Lets focus on promoting happiness NoOneMan Jan 2013 #37
I don't really need to point out the false dichotomy wtmusic Jan 2013 #38
There is no reason to not throw in the towel NoOneMan Jan 2013 #39
BTW, do you realize every environtmental disaster can now be written off? NoOneMan Jan 2013 #40
The problem is, happiness does not correlate with technology GliderGuider Jan 2013 #41
"I find that comforting" NoOneMan Jan 2013 #42
Our brains didn't evolve to assess risks far into the future. GliderGuider Jan 2013 #43
You've jumped the shark. wtmusic Jan 2013 #44
Actually I'm not going to tell anyone what does or doesn't make them happy. GliderGuider Jan 2013 #45
Population vs Consumption, ... CRH Jan 2013 #19
The Black Queen and leaky fuctions Iterate Jan 2013 #20
Both are killing the planet. (nt) NYC_SKP Jan 2013 #26
Latest Discussions»Issue Forums»Environment & Energy»Laying Blame: Population ...»Reply #19