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

Environment & Energy

NickB79

(20,329 posts)

24. The problem lies in our definition of "standard of living"

Reply to CreekDog (Reply #23)

Mon Jun 10, 2013, 01:50 PM

Jun 2013

It is now assumed around the world that the only way to increase standards of living is through an emulation of a resource-intensive society like what we see in North America or Europe. You end up with a slower-growing population, but a far higher rate of personal consumption that offsets much of the gains you make.

What we need is a new concept of what a high standard of living truly means, separate from the current consumption-based economic model it's based upon now.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

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

32 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

May 2013 Atmospheric CO2 Concentration 399.89 ppm; May 2012 396.87; May 2011 394.29 [View all] hatrack Jun 2013 OP

The concept western civilization needs to start thinking about is "not doing". Gregorian Jun 2013 #1

Shorter version: "Don't just DO something - stand there!!" hatrack Jun 2013 #2

My best friend back in 1972 had that very bumper sticker. Gregorian Jun 2013 #5

Can we put "reproducing" at the top of the "not doing" list? nt wtmusic Jun 2013 #3

You must be a mind reader. Gregorian Jun 2013 #4

how do you reduce population growth? CreekDog Jun 2013 #12

"You" don't, of course. GliderGuider Jun 2013 #21

I think that answer is too long --you/I/we reduce population growth by increasing standard of living CreekDog Jun 2013 #23

The problem lies in our definition of "standard of living" NickB79 Jun 2013 #24

that's not true --birth rates decline in societies with out western style consumption CreekDog Jun 2013 #25

Yes, they do decline, just not enough to save our skins NickB79 Jun 2013 #28

No, you're not alone. GliderGuider Jun 2013 #26

let me ask, would you want economic collapse such as happened in the Eastern Block? CreekDog Jun 2013 #27

Remember: "Morals" are subjective. Nihil Jun 2013 #29

No, I don't "want" it, but I don't think it can be avoided. GliderGuider Jun 2013 #32

The concentration. Of CO2 in the air is 400 ppm Socialistlemur Jun 2013 #6

However, since there IS a greenhouse effect, and CO2 only helps plants up to a point . . . hatrack Jun 2013 #7

I like to be soothing Socialistlemur Jun 2013 #8

Your signature line says more than you know - goodbye. hatrack Jun 2013 #9

Remember a couple of years ago, when the Arctic melt really accelerated? NickB79 Jun 2013 #15

The world's most abundant renewable resource GliderGuider Jun 2013 #10

I agree Socialistlemur Jun 2013 #13

"the world stopped warming about 14 years ago" NickB79 Jun 2013 #14

Actually those statements may be wrong. Socialistlemur Jun 2013 #17

No, you are going to stop wasting OUR time - your denier troll bullshit is no longer needed here hatrack Jun 2013 #19

Thank you. Nihil Jun 2013 #20

Thank you!!!!! sikofit3 Jun 2013 #22

+1000 Thank You hatrack. n/t CRH Jun 2013 #30

Thanks for your support, y'all . . . hatrack Jun 2013 #31

"The world" did not actually stop warming 14 years ago. GliderGuider Jun 2013 #16

Indeed the ocean absorbs heat Socialistlemur Jun 2013 #18

environment tardybar Jun 2013 #11