The Sustainablility Thread

[Lunar Scorpion]

one of the main points of sustainability is to balance athrivingeconomy with social and environmental needs.

A thriving economy does NOT have to be based on growth. Capitalism has never, does not, and will never meet environmental and certainly not social needs (which are linked, by the way). The whole point of it is that some are richer than others; there are those at the top with more money than they know what to do with, who can simply buy their way out of being environmentally friendly, and those at the bottom who will (and already do, in some cases) feel the effects of environmental disaster first and hardest. Money is a cotton wool padding that prevents us "rich" people (I use the term loosely - I am surviving on pasta and not much else this week) from the human suffering that results from climate change and us messing up the planet generally.

The economy may need to change significantly and not by moving away from oil.

? Right, because oil doesn't contribute to carbon dioxide emissions at all...

It will need to calculate it's own effectiveness in a different way - tripple bottom line, carbon emmissions, social premiums, etc but non of that should limit growth.

Why are we so obsessed with growth anyway? Why do we need it? Surely, all we need is equal distribution of wealth and enough food, water, shelter, etc... to go around - haven't we already got that, if people stopped being so greedy and wasteful? Then people could concentrate on Self-Actualisation (Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs) and fulfilling their potential instead of where their next meal is coming from...

Moving away from a carbon based economy is , perhaps, the big worry for people

I can honestly say that it is not the big worry for me right now.

but each previous revolution such as this has brought a whole new impetous for growth. There is massive potential for growth...

Growth, growth growth... I'm only 5'2 1/2", maybe I could do with some of that! (In other words, why do we need growth if we are grateful for what we've already got?! I'm not against progress - but I believe that it is defined by achievements rather than size (quality over quantity) and I actually like being short - my head comfortably misses all the door frames, lampshades and other things that taller people have to dodge!)

Given any problem we (humans) are rather good at finding lots of way of making money out of teh solutions.

Maybe if we didn't have to have lots of money just to survive, we wouldn't need to make money. I can think of quite a few good ideas that (with my limited knowledge of business and economics) would need a hell of a lot of extra hard work to gain a sizable profit. Making money is not motivating factor me (except maybe when it is for a good cause). (Having enough money to survive is another matter!)

There may well be a period of economic realignment when power shifts to those who pick up on these industries first - those who cling to the old ways will be left behind.

Maybe we could leave behind the class system while we're at it?

 

[db]

lunar, the difference between what you are saying and what doc is saying is that he is talking about legitimate and practical solutions to the inevitable and inescapable growth and development of humankind, whereas you are talking about some utopian communist society that will never ever even begin to exist..

besides, this thread is about sustainability - why do you keep going on about capitalism?? keep your outdated commie agenda outta this thread

 

[Doctor]

The economy may need to change significantly and not by moving away from oil.

? Right, because oil doesn't contribute to carbon dioxide emissions at all...

Sorry I meant to type "and not just by moving away from oil"

While I think we could do very well moving away from a growth based economy I don't think it is neccesary to do so for the economy to become sustainable. the problem is that most of the people who have the power to change things are convinced growth in required. If they think sustainable development equates to reduced/ no/ negative growth then they will run a mile from the real issues that need to be dealt with. And while we are a rich society and are reaping the rewards of so much past growth there are many places that desperatly need to grow there economies. We need to show this can be done sustainably and that is part of the original ethos of sustainable development.

 

[Lunar Scorpion]

lunar, the difference between what you are saying and what doc is saying is that he is talking about legitimate and practical solutions to the inevitable and inescapable growth and development of humankind, whereas you are talking about some utopian communist society that will never ever even begin to exist..

That is because people are too greedy and selfish to change. Unless we do, people will continue to die of starvation and goodness knows what else in places like Africa until the end of time. These are people, just like you and me - if you truly believe that these are our equals then I cannot see how you could support Capitalism! To build a new world based on different values would show, quite possibly, the greatest growth and development of humankind.

Maybe it's because I'm on the dole and I'm getting sick of hearing people whinging about being hard up because they can't afford to pay their mortgages and buy petrol so they can drive everywhere, while I don't have any of that and I can barely afford the bus prices. (It's a good job I like walking, most of the time!)

Even so, it makes you wonder whether people really are ignorant of what goes on in the world or just don't want to know...

 

[Lunar Scorpion]

While I think we could do very well moving away from a growth based economy I don't think it is neccesary to do so for the economy to become sustainable. the problem is that most of the people who have the power to change things are convinced growth in required. If they think sustainable development equates to reduced/ no/ negative growth then they will run a mile from the real issues that need to be dealt with.

You've hit the nail on the head...

And while we are a rich society and are reaping the rewards of so much past growth there are many places that desperatly need to grow there economies. We need to show this can be done sustainably and that is part of the original ethos of sustainable development.

I agree.

Alternatively, Posh & Becks and co. can donate as much as these nations need from their excess wealth, and we can guide them through the process. This is presuming that we actually know what we're doing - sometimes I begin to doubt that! (I suspect the powers that be know exactly what they're doing, but the only thing that they are sustaining is their bank accounts...)

 

[Lunar Scorpion]

besides, this thread is about sustainability - why do you keep going on about capitalism?? keep your outdated commie agenda outta this thread

It's not outdated! Out of fashion, maybe...

Anyway, green and red together is pretty - it'll be like having the Yuletide season all year round! Presents for everyone...

 

[db]

Anyway, green and red together is pretty - it'll be like having the Yuletide season all year round! Presents for everyone...

lol have a skill point purely for an inventive argument

 

[Lunar Scorpion]

Anyway, green and red together is pretty - it'll be like having the Yuletide season all year round! Presents for everyone...

lol have a skill point purely for an inventive argument

TY!

 

[damonhoppe]

Eh? Some people seem a little confused as to the meaning of the word Capitalism, not mention a few other terms being thrown around.

Capitalism is a specific economic system that produces expotential capital accumulation which is what you call 'economic' growth'. Such a system requires massive state intervention to keep it all going and has resulted in massive state sponsered monoploies (better known as corporations, banks, etc) controlling most of the worlds trade.

Capitalists argue they are superior and thus deserve their wealth and are better qaulfied to know what should be done with it than the 'plebs'. I dont find that to be a convincing arguement.

NO ECONOMISTS at present believe that Capitalism can last another 50 years. So its a question of which goes first the planet or capitalism!

The term capitalism should not be confused with its opposite a 'free market' economy which can not operate under conditions of capitialism.

The alternatives?

Free Market. Many Liberal thinkers favour this approach and are hostile to state sponsered solutions as it was the state who created the problem in the first place! Rather a market system means that no one can form a monoply and thus 'enlightended self-interest' becomes public interest. Liberals thought is more radical than their public image as this would require the dismantling of the state monopolies and it is unclear how this can be done without a revolution.

Of course Socialists argue that as the state can intervene to protect the rich it can also intervene to protect the poor and advocate that state monoplies should be placed under public rather than private control.

Social Democrats attempt to combine the two placing State Monopolies under public control for public benifit and leave the rest to the market wihtin regualtive constraints.

Anarchists argue like the Liberals that the state is part of the problem and not the solution. Anarchists believe we can work together to solve these problems and to forget about the state. The argue that the market mechanism of 'enlightened selft-interest' acts against the development of public morality. Property is theft and we would not want to endorse that would we!

Communists argue that both the Liberals and Anarchists are niave as the capitalist would use the state to do everything in their power to stay in power and therefore a revolution is required. Otherwise the same as an Anarchist.

Anarcho-Communist. Communism with out the 'revolutionary vangaurd party'.

Anarcho-Syndicism. The workers produce the wealth so they could just take over the factories tommorrow!

Islam. Islamic thought has been experincing a bit of a resurgence in the rest of the world. Its committment to social and economic justice has made it espically popular with the worlds poor who may previoulsy have followed a secular approach.

And of course the Right.

Conservative: Range from broadly accepting the Liberal arguments against Absolutism and Capitalism but wishing to proceed with greater caution too maintaining the status Quo.

Neo-Conservative: Social and economic progress has gone to far as the 'plebs' are taking over! Turn back the clock to the 19th Century or further!

Neo-Liberal. The rich are superoir and therefore should have absolute power free of public interference! The doctrine of the strong state to keep the workers down.

Fascism. Highest form of capitalism. A 'corporate state' which is complety run by a private elite oppressing any dissent.

Stalinism/Maoism: Fascsim but we are doing it for your benifit honest.

Nazism. Essentially Fascism in its form but it terms of content believes it is race rather than class that is the basis of elite theroy.

The REAL alternative. The Green View:

That a sustainable economy is in the interest of everyone so we need to move towards a sustainble econmey supporting sustainable lifestyles. Does not take a dogmatic or ideololgical approach but rather attempts to take a practical what works approach. Therefore often has policies which are sourced and refined from a number of centre-left approaches.

Moreover takes an ecological world view which works with nature rather than against it.

Thus obvioulsy opposed to right-wing thought starting with the do nothing approach of Conservativism onwards...

So if we are talking about Sustainbility we are really talking about being 'Green' which would be the better title of this thread.

 

[Wookie]

Somebody'll be along in a moment to explain about The World's Major Economic Theories Explained With Cows, no doubt...

 

[Admin]

I was going to lambast you for derailing this thread damonhoppe, when you started going down the "capitalism..." road, but then you superbly got it back on track with your closing statement. Well done

So if we are talking about Sustainbility we are really talking about being 'Green' which would be the better title of this thread.

This thread was originally called "The Green Thread," but the author (Doctor, who is an extremely active environmental campaigner) specifically requested that I remove the word "green" from the title because of the negative connotations it draws these days! Please see this post on the first page

 

[damonhoppe]

Negative connotations oh dear have we reached that stage....I had hoped we were reaching a consenus that the environment is to important to ignore.

The term Sustainability has been hijacked to refer to sustaining the current situation and thus can be quiet conservative in its usage. Thankfully the Doctor does appear to mean genuine sustainability when he uses the term.

 

[Lunar Scorpion]

I grant thee LIFE!

I am resurrecting this thread. I don't have anything productive to say, but it's an important topic.

 

[damonhoppe]

Thank you I feel resurrected - though I fear it maybe as the Undead! lol

 

[Lunar Scorpion]

Vampire or Zombie?

 

[damonhoppe]

A Vampire!

Vampire - A ressurected person who is now an immortal who can not be killed.
Zombie - A dead corpse that has been re-ainmated.

Though I think this is the wrong thread for this conversation.

 

[db]

well, thank goodness you resurrected this thread with such salient and relevant points..

I don't have anything productive to say

lol you should put this quote in your signature

 

[damonhoppe]

Hmmm,

All these undead references may at first appear irrelevant but I am viewing all those old Zombie flicks in a new light. We need to get a bunker, some land and the weapons to defend it.

 

[Lunar Scorpion]

Climate 'biggest health threat'

 

[damonhoppe]

My sister is a Health Psychologist and what she tells me about how our health is being affected by all this environmental degregation is scary...

Once again it is the poor and vunerable that will be worst affected by the selfish consumption patterns of the wealthy.

Is this not a question of ethics?