WWF: Americans Living Beyond the Earth's Means
(You know what I mean. You try writing headlines, you think you're so smart.)
This shouldn't come a a surprise to anyone, but it will. The contribution of overpopulation to the problem is of particular interest to me, partly because I think that large reductions in consumption offer only a tenuous and unstable solution. And partly because I don't see that a planet overpopulated by people living near the poverty line is such a great goal. There's no doubt that consumption has to come down, but my guess is that population does, too.
Few seem to want to hear this. Folks on the right have a tendency to either deny the problem or place an irrational amount of faith in technology (I guess they think we can soon go to Mars and start strip-mining there). But I've long since given up trying to talk sense about the environment to the right wing.
Unfortunately, some of my friends on the left are almost as bad, regarding any call for population reduction as being somehow racist. Which, of course, isn't true..
There's also a kind of puritannical streak in some of my lefty friends...the granola 'n' Birckenstocks crowd (they sprinkle little Birkenstocks on their granola). They like a kind of hippy lifestyle on something like aesthetic grounds, and are sometimes rater over-eager to insist that we can only survive if everybody lives that way. Fixated on reducing consumption for aesthetic reasons, they tend to dismiss the suggestion that population reduction has some role to play in the solution.
And, by the way, I share some of their aesthetic and moral revulsion at the current upper-middle-class American way of life. I'm no enviro-puritan--not by a long shot. I like being able to drive where I want, use the a/c, blah blah. (I need to cut down on those things, incidentally.) But I did grow up on a relatively low-tech farm in rural MO...I know you can live a meaningful, comfortable and happy life on a lot less than everyone's currently using.
So I agree that it is obscene the way many are living now...Christ, every other student is driving around in a brand new SUV, a/c cranking, newest model cell phone stuck to their ear. And they seem to be oblivious to how rich they are in compared to almost anyone else who has ever lived.
And another thing: I saw a care the other day, a snazzy, black late model Saab, with a big white bumper-sticker slapped on the back that read something like "My Next Car Will Be a White Mercedes! Ask Me About Somebullshitorothersystems." Now, how twisted do your values have to be if, driving around in a shiny, black late-model Saab, you are so fixated on getting a (important note: a white one) Mercedes that you are willing to turn yourself into a rolling billboard? Some people, I just don't get 'em.
It's like a type of gluttony. A sort of multi-modal hyper-gluttony. Nauseating. Odious.
Um...so...there's that, then.
(You know what I mean. You try writing headlines, you think you're so smart.)
This shouldn't come a a surprise to anyone, but it will. The contribution of overpopulation to the problem is of particular interest to me, partly because I think that large reductions in consumption offer only a tenuous and unstable solution. And partly because I don't see that a planet overpopulated by people living near the poverty line is such a great goal. There's no doubt that consumption has to come down, but my guess is that population does, too.
Few seem to want to hear this. Folks on the right have a tendency to either deny the problem or place an irrational amount of faith in technology (I guess they think we can soon go to Mars and start strip-mining there). But I've long since given up trying to talk sense about the environment to the right wing.
Unfortunately, some of my friends on the left are almost as bad, regarding any call for population reduction as being somehow racist. Which, of course, isn't true..
There's also a kind of puritannical streak in some of my lefty friends...the granola 'n' Birckenstocks crowd (they sprinkle little Birkenstocks on their granola). They like a kind of hippy lifestyle on something like aesthetic grounds, and are sometimes rater over-eager to insist that we can only survive if everybody lives that way. Fixated on reducing consumption for aesthetic reasons, they tend to dismiss the suggestion that population reduction has some role to play in the solution.
And, by the way, I share some of their aesthetic and moral revulsion at the current upper-middle-class American way of life. I'm no enviro-puritan--not by a long shot. I like being able to drive where I want, use the a/c, blah blah. (I need to cut down on those things, incidentally.) But I did grow up on a relatively low-tech farm in rural MO...I know you can live a meaningful, comfortable and happy life on a lot less than everyone's currently using.
So I agree that it is obscene the way many are living now...Christ, every other student is driving around in a brand new SUV, a/c cranking, newest model cell phone stuck to their ear. And they seem to be oblivious to how rich they are in compared to almost anyone else who has ever lived.
And another thing: I saw a care the other day, a snazzy, black late model Saab, with a big white bumper-sticker slapped on the back that read something like "My Next Car Will Be a White Mercedes! Ask Me About Somebullshitorothersystems." Now, how twisted do your values have to be if, driving around in a shiny, black late-model Saab, you are so fixated on getting a (important note: a white one) Mercedes that you are willing to turn yourself into a rolling billboard? Some people, I just don't get 'em.
It's like a type of gluttony. A sort of multi-modal hyper-gluttony. Nauseating. Odious.
Um...so...there's that, then.
posted by Winston Smith at
9:51 AM
6 Comments:
The earth's resources are finite, limited.
Regardless of what humans say or profess to believe, their behavior is no different than any other mammal competing for limited resources. The winners get greater access to those resources (oil or food or water or females) than the losers. That's assuming the losers even survive and that seems unlikely.
Therefore the problem is self correcting, but it won't be pretty.
An interesting question I think is: "What should the proper strategy be?" Should we try to lift as many as we can out of poverty and trust that their reproductive strategy will change? Or should we continue to pursue the current winner takes all strategy?
Well, actually it actually is different in many cases. We recognize e.g. moral obligations, and often act on them. Note what we've done to check our ravenous appetites for resources already by imposing e.g. laws against polluting.
We CAN be rational, and occasionally ARE rational. It's not impossible, it's just difficult.
I don't have a reference just now to offer, but I believe that it has been found that literacy rates are related to birth rates, in that more educated populations have lower birth rates. (And I think education might also have something to do with poverty as well.)
Would a strategy of education/poverty reduction, and conservation of resources work? If starting today, or in the near future, every generation only replaced itself, and population growth became flat, or even began to slowly decrease, are we still screwed?
And how do you bring along millions of dumb animals -- who seldom think more than six months out, and who love their extravagant lifestyle -- with a serious program of conseveration, that would certainly put a cramp in their style?
And how do you bring along millions of dumb animals -- who seldom think more than six months out, and who love their extravagant lifestyle -- with a serious program of conseveration, that would certainly put a cramp in their style?
Well, if you're trying to do this through persuasion, not calling them "dumb animals" might be a reasonable place to start. Of course, if you're planning on doing it through coercion, calling them "dumb animals" might be a necessary first step.
[Sorry, I don't mean to be all Kantian "treat people as ends not means" -- not least because I find Kant is like 9/10ths incomprehensible -- but this is a particular hot-button of mine]
As to the substantive point, I don't mean to be Pollyanish, but I'm not sure that the hard-landing scenario is very likely. The First World is very unlikely to regulate its consumption by itself, of course, but it doesn't seem to me that price mechanisms will be wholly unable to address this (outsourcing can be seen as beneficial, on this model; because of American overconsumption, capital starts to flow overseas, and American unemployment goes up, reducing its overall consumption). As to population qua population, education and poverty-reduction are great in their own right, but really, I think the most effective approach domestically would be to get rid of abstinence-only sex education and hand out condoms continually on street corners; globally, getting a Pope who can read Gen 38:6-10 would probably be a wonderful idea too (yes, I know, Catholic opposition to birth control isn't grounded in this passage. It's a cheap shot, what do you want?).
not calling them "dumb animals" might be a reasonable place to start.
Who said anything about reasonable?
No, you're right. I didn't realize any of "them" were reading this. I might have said, 'We're behaving like dumb animals here, we really ought to consider the environmental damage we are doing, and take steps to reverse it.'
How do we bring along the good-hearted, but perhaps misguided folks who'll respond to that plea with, "Not now my show's on"?
I absolutely agree with getting rid of abstinence-only "education" (regardless of whether it helps save the world or not.)
I'm not sure that the hard-landing scenario is very likely.
This is a fine sentiment but only that. There is no basis for believing that there will be a "soft" landing and in fact every reason to suppose it will be quite hard indeed. Some biologists are not too sure the human species will even survive the 21st century. Most are very pessimistic that sufficient action will be taken in time. If there is even any time left. For all we know it may be too late already. The mother of all fold catastrophes has us in her sights and is unlikely to let us off easy.
When dealing with the mass behavior of 7 billion people the notion they they will collectively act for the common good and set aside their own self interest strikes me as fanciful. Pessimism seems to me to be a safer bet.
There is the possibility that a small group of very powerful people (in other words, not politicians) will decide to force the rest of the world to follow them and set out on a policy that might might avert the worst. But I'm afraid the temptation to grab a little extra for themselves would be too much. Not to mention the fear among the rest that they would do exactly that. Chaos ensues.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home