Is technology and environmentalism compatible? Is technology neutral?

[auroraglacialis]

Originally Posted by Human No More

Sustainability: To me, it's making them last as long as humanity will. This means saving what there is and recycling what has already been produced.

Well, if you can continue with what is already there, then ok. You would need 100% recycling rate and zero growth for that though.

Exactly why the Earth is hugely overpopulated. As it is, there are only a few resources that are measured in decades (oil and possibly gas) which is why dependence on those needs to be removed - others are nowhere near as limited.

Well - many mineral resources are also measured in decades really. Nitrogen fertilizer is actually just natural gas, but phosphorous fertilizer is dug up from the earth and is said to peak in production not much after oil does. For other mineral resources like copper, REEs and other vital resources the time is also running out. Especially with the rising demand that is expected for these in the next decade. It is true, that to some extent, this can be stretched by investing more energy (which poses a problem in itself), but the environmental implications are horrendous. The high percentage ores are all gone, low grade ores are now beeing mined and processed and in the future, even lower grade ores might become viable as prices rise and more energy is invested. This also means larger mines. You can dig up half of England and process it with enough energy into a number of mineral resources, but this would literally eat away the landscape.

asteroid mining...Why an arbitrary limit?
The technology is all in place, as is the knowledge, the only obstructions are political, primarily lack of funding due to unnecessary focus on things which are, for the most part, harmful to the world. ... Not a challenge, it's been known HOW for decades. Nobody just wants to put themselves in the position to do it unilaterally.

I do not really believe that. I doubt that it is only lack of interest for these that hinders it. It is also a technologcial challenge and requires a lot of money, resources and work. Asteroid mining - we are not even close to that. The asteroids are even father away than Mars, to mine them would mean big machinery to be shot up there and then you have to get it all back here. Maybe it could be possible in a century or two, but that 30 years (2040) is a common number that is sort of the latest limit for upcoming peak-everything. At that point in time, new resources have to be found in massive quantities to prevent scarcity.

Why such a large population? It is already too large, it would make more sense to stabilise it at a lower population with better quality of life.

On that I definitely agree!

Yes, I've heard that story before, but since population does not ALWAYS increase in orders of magnitude (indeed, birth rates are dropping), it isn't relevant.

Well - it is only partial about population increase. The reason why population increase is bad is that it equals an increase in consumption, usually food. With industrialization, increased resource consumption does not need to be correlated with population. You can have a constant population but still increase resource consumption exponentially. One example is biofuels. By them literally food is converted to lifestyle. By using this to fuel cars, people increase food consumption without population growth.
If we freeze todays population and just let them develop technologically, the resources of this planet would not be enough.
That is my problem with the idea that recycling will solve the problem. If the people who already are here all want cars and cellphones, it is not enough to recycle what is already there (which is never possible to 100% anyways) but also new resources have to be mined for that development.

There won't be room for new growth, but it will allow support of what has already happened.

So we need a zero growth in population and resource accumulation. That is not equal to a zero growth in resource consumption, but rather means, we cannot use much more resources anymore, but have to do with what is already there. If that can be done, then fine. Although - this would mean that many people would not be able to have the same lifestyle as others.
There is another problem though and that is that just maintaining the status also has an impact. It still requires an influx of resources, it still puts a strain on the environment and it still harms the natural world. If you have a river that has dams in it to provide hydropower and water for irrigation, you can maintain this with little additional resources, but it still means that salmon will not reach their breeding grounds and ecosystems depending on the river will turn dry as the water is used up upstream. Even by just maintaining this, ecology is harmed or restricted.

So of course I think there is a nice utopia we could dream up. A world in which population growth is zero, in which the population actually is reduced to an optimal level, a technology that recycles all mineral resources and metals, a technology that uses mostly natural materials without overusing the renewable resources, A society that despite these challenges turns egalitarian. if all this would work, I would be in favour. But i do not see this happening. It is about as likely as an angel coming down from heaven and showing people the path to paradise. The momentum of civilization as it is now is going into a wrong direction and it is hard to change that. It has to stop now (zero growth) and then people would have to look for alternatives. Maybe there is a way to make a civilization that is sustainable, but for that to emerge, the current status quo has to hit the brakes.

Gradual changes wont do it - that's what I am saying. i am saying, we should change priorities. The priority should be to maintain this planet as a living beeing, to allow nonhumans to live on this planet and to just have a healthy planet. Next comes human wellbeeing, freedom, egalitarian lifestyle and community - human happiness. And only then comes the development of new tools and knowledge. Though it is a bit circular, as knowledge is what may make the other things possible.

I love knowledge. But to love knowledge means also to act on it. Knowledge has not only shown us things about how the universe works, how start shine and how atoms work, but also how humans work, what they need, how ancient societies lived and what social structures are beneficial to humans. Knowledge also tell us that growth as it is promoted now does not work, that we are destroying the planet and causing a mass extinction. What good is knowledge if we do not act on it if it shows us that something is going wrong?

I'd rather have trees and fish and elk and beavers than drive a car. If the price for maintaining the lifestyle we have now is 150 species going extinct every day(!), I dont want it.

[Banefull]

Sorry for not replying earlier. Here we go:

Originally Posted by auroraglacialis

And imposing stress on someone else is not hurting him? Or even violating him? If I do something that puts you under stress and maybe even not give you anything in return, but rather take, would you not feel hurt or violated? Actually I know such a situation: If I would come over to you and rob you, that would put stress on you, I would take and not give back and you would be stressed but not to a point you cannot revocer. Humans can handle great amounts of stress you know... So what civilized humans are doing now is nothing short of robbery. The only way it can be justified is to say that the natural world, Earth, is not alive or at least not sentient and thus unable to feel the stress or hurt.

Tell me Auraglacialis, do you really think that the Earth is alive? I was under the impression that it was a rock, a very valuable rock indeed. It is our home, we should take care of it so that we can continue to live it on it. That includes utilizing its resources.

Nature is not a being. It is an abstract concept; you cannot hurt it.

How are we even stealing? Are we not part of nature too? When a gorilla takes a twig or a rock and uses it achieve his ends, what makes that different from a human using a twig or a rock also to achieve his ends?

We are tool users by nature. We utilize resources and we are not the only animals who do so.

Originally Posted by auroraglacialis

Such a mechanistic worldview is common in civilization and I think that it is wrong - not neccesarily out of spiritual reasons, but also simply because such a worldview propagates exactly the situations we are in now. If people think they can live on a planet with diminished biodiversity by engineering climate control machines and bioengineer plants that can live with global warming - if people treat the planet as a lifeless thing, they will eventually destroy it. Maybe they will manage by some technology to stay alive and maybe even keep some pet plants for gardens or as a life support system or for food production, but that's it. If everything in nature has to have a value for humans to have the right to be preserved, this is going to be a dire place.

We have a moral obligation to provide a better life for our children and for the next generation. If we truly care for them, then we would not over utilize our resources so that they may have some. We should care for the environment based upon our concern for others, not for nature itself. We preserve nature so that they can utilize it and experience its beauty.

Life has value. We should not go out and kill things because we feel like it. I subscribe to the view that there are higher forms of life. If a bacterial disease threatens us, we have a right to eliminate it for the sake of preserving human life. If we are suffering from predation from wolves, then we have a right to go and slay them to ensure our safety. If we need to eat, we have a right to go and hunt other animals for food. We have to take these concerns and balance them with the needs of the next generation also. We have to make sure that we do not eat all the deer but still leave a sizeable portion for the next generaiton to hunt sustainably. In this way we would naturally come to preserve large quantities of natural environment out of necessity.

Originally Posted by auroraglacialis

Ok, let me ask you one thing: What is your definition of sustainability? My definition is that something can be done indefinitely. You can use exactly as much wood as will grow back or eat as much food as the land can provide or take as many mineral resources as are formed. But if you look at the latter, you will run into a problem, as mineral resources form over millions of years. Even if you drop resource consumption to 1/10th of the current level (by recycling for example), they will last only for some more decades. And that is at present development - it is commonly accepted however that the desire is to give all 7 billion people the same living standards, which is when it just ceases to work out.
The difference that is hit here is between renewable resources (soil, water, air, wind energy, solar energy, biomass) and nonrenewable ones. And sadly, these days even agricultural land is depleted beyond its regenerative capacity due to soil loss caused by industrial agriculture. The non renewables are of course REEs (for "green energy"),metals, fossil fuels, nuclear fuels, P-fertilizer, gas (as a fossil fuel and as the origin of N-fertilizers).
What kind of level of resource consumption and technology thus do you think is sustainable?

Sustainability for me is not forever. The world and the universe will end eventually. Trying to make resources last infinitely would be pointless.

All resources are limited. When we refer to renewable resources, we really refer to the cost as being renewable. When you buy a soda and throw away the aluminum can, the aluminum is not somehow destroyed. The Earth has a set amount of aluminun. The aluminun can that you just threw away now sits in a landfill. We could still go back and dig out that lone aluminun can but its a lot more expensive than just mining more from the ground. When we look at things like water, the Earth has a set amount of water but some of it is cheaper to utilize. Water that comes from rivers, springs, or aquifers does not need expensive processes (other than filtering) to make it drinkable. If we wanted, the human race could get all of its drinking water from condensing vapor in the atmosphere or desalinizing water from the ocean; it would just be very expensive.

Sustainability to me is keeping the cost of utilization low over a long period of time. Keeping utilization costs low requires that we do not over utilize, that we recycle, etc. Also technology is ever pushing the cost at which we can utilize resources down at a steady rate. Someday we will perhaps be able to get all of our drinking water from condensing water vapor cheaply. Who knows?

Originally Posted by auroraglacialis

I have several problems with that. For once, it would mean that we achieve the level of a spacefaring, asteroid mining species within the next maybe 3 decades and I dont see that. Just to fly to Mars, which is not as far as the asteroid belt, is a huge challenge. Then even if humans do so (with unforseeable consequences), this may allow them to expand further, to spread out into the tens of billions of people living in some life-support-dependent chambers. But then what? Within a century or two the next limit will be reached and expansion has to go further. Maybe interstellar travel is possible and huamns can spread on and on?
But the whole thing is exponential growth. I am sure you heard about the famous story on the chinese emperor. A person who has done agreat service for the emperor asks for only one small thing. Take a checkerboard and put one grain of rice on the first square, then twice as much on the next and the numbers of rice grains on the board are what he wants as payment. The emperor laughed and agreed, only to find out that the amount of rice was of orders of magnitude larger than all the rice in the world.
The first square was maybe the invention of agriculture in the fertile crescent (before it was made infertile by agriculture), the second maybe horsepulled plows in Europe, then crop rotation, then industrialized farming with machines, then the "green revolution" with fertilizers and pesticides, the next may be GMOs. Each time the population exploded as a result. If the next steps are colonization of the Moon or Mars or the Solar System, you can see, that in exponential growth even these vast resources are soon becoming limiting.
As the first settlers to the USA could not imagine that once the land would become scarce for agriculture, as the developers of the first PCs thought 640 kilobytes will forever be enough memory for such a machine and the industrial fishery was convinced that the abundance of fish in the ocean could never be depleted - just as all of them have been proven wrong by the nature of exponential growth, so even if a new abundant source of XY is found, it will not change the problem unless some other limiting factor comes into play. In nature, a population (or resource consumption) is always limited by the most scarce factor (often food). The only hope humanity has to beat the exponential growth curve is to either hit a scarecity (resources, energy, impossibility of interstellar travel) or to somehow self-impose such a limitation (which is unlikely to happen as civilized people are always in an arms race/food race/technology race, competing against someone else for domination).

Population growth rates have been declining as populations become more technology dependent. The birthrates in many countries are under 2 per family, therefore, the western world is experiencing negative growth rates in terms of births. The only reason that the more developed parts of the world do not actually experience a population drop is because of immigration from lesser developed parts of the world. Even in these areas, as development increases, population growth rate decreases. If anything, the figures are pointing to a negative population growth rate for the world sometime in the next two centuries. I have no reason to believe that there will be an exponential growth rate in the future.

[Human No More]

I agree about changing priorities - I just think that we can do so while remaining at the level we are at today.

[auroraglacialis]

@HNM:
Well I guess it depends on what you mean by "level". I think, we don't have to throw away all the knowledge and innovation and return to the stone age in order to achieve sustainability, but I think some things definitely have to go - and soon. I think some parts of civilization are just not sustainable at all and there are some parts that can be replaced by something of equal value that does not require us destroying the planet.
In fact, many things that make people happy are not materialistic. Cell phones and cars dont make people happy a lot. Love, community, friendship, freedom, self-determination and caring for others does. These things are sustainable and we actually dont loose them, but rather gain them if we change away from a purely materialistic world view. So if you get local communication, friendship, community as a replacement for cell phones, it could actually make you happier.
Of course there are some things that have been developed that affect some basic happiness factors, the most important one is health. This ranks among the basic desires of humans - health, food, shelter, water and social factors are important there. But it does not include cell phones or airplane travels to the other side of the globe.
People in this culture are all in a rush, they want to be productive and complex, as that is what they have been taught to be. For that reason you need fast cars, planes, trains, you need clocks and fast food,... one of the key results of science on happiness is that slower is better - less stress, more happiness by simplicity and taking time.
So let's assume you don't have to make a lot of money or be back for the job within a week - let's say if you go on vacation, you can be off for 2 months or a year - would it not even be fun then to take a journey with a boat or even by bike instead of an airplane? People do this all the time by the way - if they are allowed to by society (which means they either have to be rich or in the right setting).

So the question is one of what returns you get for the investment. Very economical actually. You invest things like innovation and knowledge, but also the strain on the environment (by extracting resources and producing waste) and human labor as well as risk. You get back products or concepts or behaviour patterns that may improve your life (or not). Now in Utopia, each of these investements should produce something that is more beneficial than the investments and each of these things should strive to be sustainable. Right now that is not the case at all. The balance is off, cell phones and cars produce so much damage, cost so much in all the factors that are required to have them running (from mineral resource extraction to platics, to oil mining, to exhaust fumes, CO2, hard labor,...) that the return value (some people in some countries beeing able to get from one point to another more quickly) is not worth it. There are things that are really worth it, and they are usually the simple ones. Like boiling your water before you drink it, if you are unsure of the quality. Simple and extremely effective.

the problem I see is that at present, the investment in new developments or in keeping up some of the developments is not justified in respect of the returns.

A completely different question, but related, is if these investments are sustainable and for how long. Clearly oil mining, copper mining and increase of agricultural land are not sustainable indefinitely. At some time, all of these will run out, even if the rate is slowed by an order of magnitude or so. This will eventually be a problem. Maybe not in our generation if we manage to reach that reducation, but taking the seventh-generation-rule into account, our descendants will have that problem eventually.

So the real question is then, what things can we keep and maintain and what parts do we have to replace and what parts cannot be sustained for the sake of the priorities I mentioned?

Edit: This may especially interest you: http://www.ted.com/talks/nic_marks_t...net_index.html

[Human No More]

Originally Posted by auroraglacialis

In fact, many things that make people happy are not materialistic. Cell phones and cars dont make people happy a lot. Love, community, friendship, freedom, self-determination and caring for others does. These things are sustainable and we actually dont loose them, but rather gain them if we change away from a purely materialistic world view. So if you get local communication, friendship, community as a replacement for cell phones, it could actually make you happier.

For some people. If I was missing any one thing, I would be miserable. That goes for 99% of people. Being able to communicate with people, to do things easily, IS one of those for the vast majority of people. Just because some people would be happy living under a rock with 1 or 2 other people does not mean the majority of people would. Of course, it's easy to say 'some things' without giving any kind of definition of what those are, it's a lot harder to actually come up with something to back that up.

Of course there are some things that have been developed that affect some basic happiness factors, the most important one is health. This ranks among the basic desires of humans - health, food, shelter, water and social factors are important there. But it does not include cell phones or airplane travels to the other side of the globe.

For some people, it does. Without the people all over the world who I care about, without my real friends, I would have nothing to keep me going. I have places I want to visit some day, which is a goal for my life. If all I could ever do was what was here, there would be no point to it, no reason to be happy, because I already have.

People in this culture are all in a rush, they want to be productive and complex, as that is what they have been taught to be. For that reason you need fast cars, planes, trains, you need clocks and fast food,... one of the key results of science on happiness is that slower is better - less stress, more happiness by simplicity and taking time.

Not always. Waiting can be just as annoying. It really depends on context and individual preferences.]

So let's assume you don't have to make a lot of money or be back for the job within a week - let's say if you go on vacation, you can be off for 2 months or a year - would it not even be fun then to take a journey with a boat or even by bike instead of an airplane? People do this all the time by the way - if they are allowed to by society (which means they either have to be rich or in the right setting).

Again, it depends. If it's nearby, and possible to, then maybe, although even then, after a few days of what;'s all the same, 99% of people would hate it. don't forget that a bike or boat is also a development which allows things to be done quickly and more easily, so that seems a bit hypocritical

So the question is one of what returns you get for the investment. Very economical actually. You invest things like innovation and knowledge, but also the strain on the environment (by extracting resources and producing waste) and human labor as well as risk.

the ONLY way those will EVER be zero is by the extinction of humanity. Humans affect the environment even by EXISTING. Always have, always will without more effort.
THAT is why it is sensible to be reasonable, but discarding all progress is not only implausible, but wasteful and naive.

The balance is off, cell phones and cars produce so much damage, cost so much in all the factors that are required to have them running (from mineral resource extraction to platics, to oil mining, to exhaust fumes, CO2, hard labor,...) that the return value (some people in some countries beeing able to get from one point to another more quickly) is not worth it. There are things that are really worth it, and they are usually the simple ones. Like boiling your water before you drink it, if you are unsure of the quality. Simple and extremely effective.

Yet you say that over the internet. Without any progress, you could never talk to people, you could never develop your ideas, you would be stuck in ta single place all your life with the people in the immediate location and never know about the rest of the world. you would never be able to appreciate the true beauty of the world. Face it, you hate what you rely on in order to not only appreciate the world, but to form and state your opinions. That is why I recognise all those are necessary, just not done in the right way.

A completely different question, but related, is if these investments are sustainable and for how long. Clearly oil mining, copper mining and increase of agricultural land are not sustainable indefinitely. At some time, all of these will run out, even if the rate is slowed by an order of magnitude or so. This will eventually be a problem. Maybe not in our generation if we manage to reach that reducation, but taking the seventh-generation-rule into account, our descendants will have that problem eventually.

Yes, because overpopulation is a huge problem and it is increasing, exactly what I said many pages ago. If the population was stable, none of that would be an issue.

So the real question is then, what things can we keep and maintain and what parts do we have to replace and what parts cannot be sustained for the sake of the priorities I mentioned?

again, growth for growth's sake is pointless and unsustainable. Improvement and innovation, better quality of life, are not.

This thread is ironic. It's only BECAUSE you don't have to worry about being eaten by wild animals or starving to death that you can think of such things as desirable - I care about the environment, but I don't consider it valuable at all costs over the basic quality of life that everyone deserves. It's only because of proper communication that you can state your opinion.

[auroraglacialis]

This thread is indeed ironic as we are not so far apart inopinion, yet debate ferouciously
So I want to clarify one thing: I am not a hater of technology or development in general. I do not want humans to regress to some image of a distant past. Also I think I have to seperate two things here: The effect of technology on humans and the environment and human society. In terms of human society I have ideals, that are probably very similar to yours. Egalitarianism, freedom, self-sustainability of individuals, respect to others, a sense of community with others,... This thread is however on the effect technology has, and that is a difficult one. I will shoot myself into the leg now if I say, that one may consider using a rock to crack open a nut is already technology and thus to avoid this humanity would have to go back 5 million years. But that is not what I am saying. I am selective, even if that appears as hypocrisy at times. Some writers attach that selection to seperating tools from technology. Anything that a person can make himself from the materials available is a tool, everything that needs specialization and division of labour is a technology.

I also do not really deny that technology can bring good things. It certainly does bring good things, at least for the ones who are in the profit zone (this does not include people working in sweat shops, but that is again the society topic). The question is a different one - it is about sustainability in the long run and about the negative effects it has inevitably. The surprising thing is that not all the negative effects have to be so obvious. Having a TV may be cool, but it also draws you away from friends and family, people talk less and watch more TV.
And on sustainability: How much do you think would population have to be reduced to generate sustainability? I mean - reduce consumption to 1/10 (which is a lot), and you expand the timespan to reach the limits of resource use from decades to centuries. And even maintaining the status quo requires an influx of resources. But again I am with you here - it is a very good plan to reduce resource consumption - in the light of what will be in 1000 years, this might not be sustainable then, but it is a valuable first step and I am also all with you on that population will have to decline to create a sustainable future.

So in respect to your post: You mostly bash my post in respect of that you say that what I say is not a good prospect for all people, but only for a few (like increased community, replacing material wealth my other forms of wealth). That is certainly true and some people will probably for a while be all miserable if they cannot have their cellphone or iPad or flatscreen TV. I am confident if these things would mystically disappear, people would find new ways and after a short time be happy with these things. Humans are incredibly adaptive, which can be a blessing and a curse. But fair enoug to say, that not all people will like it.

Originally Posted by Human No More

[Happiness:] Of course, it's easy to say 'some things' without giving any kind of definition of what those are, it's a lot harder to actually come up with something to back that up.

Well, I could drag some up, but this beyond the scope, as it again is more of a social thing. The talk I linked above is one that mentiones some of these things in more detail, if you are interested (and it is far from a techno-haters talk).

There are two more things about the topic of "giving things up". One is, that you only would miss them because you got used to them. This does make not using them hard and a sacrifice. So I think the aim would be to find alternatives that are more sustainable and more attractive. Another thing is, that you sadly seem to have a very high priority on these things. You seem to prioritize these things over a healthy planet and more or less say, that you do not want to give up anything but rather insist that it is possible to change these things in a way that is not harming the planet. I think for some things, it may be possible, for others it won't (or at least not in time).

Waiting can be just as annoying. It really depends on context and individual preferences.

The basic underlying rule here is, that each being should have all the freedom as long as he does not limit the freedom of others. But there have to be priorities. And this rule has to respect non-human beings as well. There is no such thing as a right to exploit the world/people or to a fast technological development, if a hastened devlopment is dangerous and threatening the well-being of others.

the ONLY way those will EVER be zero is by the extinction of humanity. Humans affect the environment even by EXISTING. Always have, always will without more effort.
THAT is why it is sensible to be reasonable, but discarding all progress is not only implausible, but wasteful and naive.

Again - I am not saying that discarding ALL progress [that has been made?] is needed. But that maintaining it will possibly be unsustainable and that new progress has to be made with that in mind.
And yes - humans like all animals affect the environment. There is not so much bad to it, but eliminating species at a rate of 150 a day is crazy. And living in a way that is just bound for hitting a limit is also. You can have sheep or trees for millions of years living the same way we do. That cannot be said about civilized humans. That is the distinction. If people say that if that is not possible we will have to go to space, then this just proves the point, that this life is not sustainable. And in beeing so, it creates all the problems we see, but moreover it simply is heading towards a dead end. Limiting resource consumption by lowr population or recycling can prolong that greatly, so I think that is a nice solution for some time, to allow for a long period of consideration about other options, if there are any. Philosophically spoken though, any way of life that consumes resources at a higher rate than they are replenished has at some time (and if it is in some centuries) to hit a limit.

Yet you say that over the internet. Without any progress, you could never talk to people.... That is why I recognise all those are necessary, just not done in the right way.

Again - we are not so different. I also see the main problem in how people realte to their tools and to each other. And I am a part of this all of course. I have a computer, a job, live in a house that needs oil to be warm in winter,... but that should not deny me the credibility to criticize it, to point towards the problems of it or to use the means I have by this to talk about it. If I would not have these means, probably I also would not have to talk about them in the way I do, so it is kind of circular. Actually I think it is very much the only way this can go anywhere - if people who are living within all this, who are at the winning side of it start to rethink. The ones on the other side, mostly other cultures, indigenous people, natives, aboriginal people already know - they also say so, but are not heard as they are regarded as not well enough educated. So it takes people who are well educated, who are part and product of this system to speak up.

again, growth for growth's sake is pointless and unsustainable. Improvement and innovation, better quality of life, are not.

So there is something like "sustainable growth"???

I care about the environment, but I don't consider it valuable at all costs over the basic quality of life that everyone deserves.

Fair enough, these are your priorities then. The basic quality of life (which includes according to your post having cellphones, internet, rapid transportation and fast technological development - and actually all the comforts of civilized life that anyone would miss if it would be gone) ranks higher than the environment. My priorities differ. But that is the reason why we are in a debate finally.

[Human No More]

Originally Posted by auroraglacialis

This thread is indeed ironic as we are not so far apart inopinion, yet debate ferouciously
So I want to clarify one thing: I am not a hater of technology or development in general. I do not want humans to regress to some image of a distant past. Also I think I have to seperate two things here: The effect of technology on humans and the environment and human society. In terms of human society I have ideals, that are probably very similar to yours. Egalitarianism, freedom, self-sustainability of individuals, respect to others, a sense of community with others,.

All of those are important, but what's important is individuality and choice. Not everyone wants to have to be wth other people all the time.

The surprising thing is that not all the negative effects have to be so obvious. Having a TV may be cool, but it also draws you away from friends and family, people talk less and watch more TV.

Which can also be both neutral and positive.

So in respect to your post: You mostly bash my post in respect of that you say that what I say is not a good prospect for all people, but only for a few (like increased community, replacing material wealth my other forms of wealth). That is certainly true and some people will probably for a while be all miserable if they cannot have their cellphone or iPad or flatscreen TV. I am confident if these things would mystically disappear, people would find new ways and after a short time be happy with these things.

I wouldn't write off innovation so quickly. If all society was desstroyed, but humans survived, even if they were reduced to feral creatures, given time a new civilisation would arise. It might be better, it might be worse, it might be just about the same as things are now (in terms of overall, not specifics).
That's why freedom and choice are important. If you want to live without any comforts because you think it's better, then do it, but let everyone else live their own lives - while they should still actually be careful about the environment, there is no need to place it above all else.

[quote]Another thing is, that you sadly seem to have a very high priority on these things. You seem to prioritize these things over a healthy planet and more or less say, that you do not want to give up anything but rather insist that it is possible to change these things in a way that is not harming the planet. I think for some things, it may be possible, for others it won't (or at least not in time).[/quote[
Not in time. That's a very big difference. Based on past estimates of the future, 99% of major advances would never have happened.
Yes, I value wellbeing and quality of live above the environment, both are important and can easily be balanced (and the entire point ism, if you don't want such things, you don't have to take advantage of them), but they are not mutually exclusive.

The basic underlying rule here is, that each being should have all the freedom as long as he does not limit the freedom of others. But there have to be priorities. And this rule has to respect non-human beings as well. There is no such thing as a right to exploit the world/people or to a fast technological development, if a hastened devlopment is dangerous and threatening the well-being of others.

And if it isn't?
That's the point of personal freedom. It doesn't matter how it's achieved, this isn't an 'ends justify the means' scenario here, it's one of any means you like to your own goals as long as you leave others to make their own decision.

Again - I am not saying that discarding ALL progress [that has been made?] is needed. But that maintaining it will possibly be unsustainable and that new progress has to be made with that in mind.

Regressing can be equally unsustainable, if not more so. If humanity regressed even a century or two from current levels, 90-95% of the population would probably be killed.

And yes - humans like all animals affect the environment. There is not so much bad to it, but eliminating species at a rate of 150 a day is crazy.

Not all of them are even caused by actions of others. Species DO die out, it's called natural selection. Yes, some actions accelerate this and they should be avoided, but preventing any species from ever going extinct is not only highly unlikely (and a HUGE waste of resources), but undesirable from a long term genetic health perspective. As it is, many common species today would have likely gone extinct without human actions.

And living in a way that is just bound for hitting a limit is also. You can have sheep or trees for millions of years living the same way we do. That cannot be said about civilized humans.

Both of which act entirely on instinct and have no real intelligence and spend almost the entirety of their time surviving. Humans are capable of adapting, which is their only true strength, but means they are capable of much greater success than other species, in addition to sentience.

That is the distinction. If people say that if that is not possible we will have to go to space, then this just proves the point, that this life is not sustainable. And in beeing so, it creates all the problems we see, but moreover it simply is heading towards a dead end. Limiting resource consumption by lowr population or recycling can prolong that greatly, so I think that is a nice solution for some time, to allow for a long period of consideration about other options, if there are any. Philosophically spoken though, any way of life that consumes resources at a higher rate than they are replenished has at some time (and if it is in some centuries) to hit a limit.

I don't quite get the difference. It is perfectly possible to utilise existing resources to last for as long as the Earth will.

Again - we are not so different. I also see the main problem in how people realte to their tools and to each other. And I am a part of this all of course. I have a computer, a job, live in a house that needs oil to be warm in winter,... but that should not deny me the credibility to criticize it, to point towards the problems of it or to use the means I have by this to talk about it. If I would not have these means, probably I also would not have to talk about them in the way I do, so it is kind of circular. Actually I think it is very much the only way this can go anywhere - if people who are living within all this, who are at the winning side of it start to rethink. The ones on the other side, mostly other cultures, indigenous people, natives, aboriginal people already know - they also say so, but are not heard as they are regarded as not well enough educated. So it takes people who are well educated, who are part and product of this system to speak up.

And nobody stops you, but it's easy to criticise something while still benefiting from it. It's a lot harder to still see only the negatives when you realise how difficult survival otherwise is.

Fair enough, these are your priorities then. The basic quality of life (which includes according to your post having cellphones, internet, rapid transportation and fast technological development - and actually all the comforts of civilized life that anyone would miss if it would be gone) ranks higher than the environment. My priorities differ. But that is the reason why we are in a debate finally.

I wouldn't put it in such black and white t erms myself, but if you insist, then yes. Both are important, and ignoring one on favour of the other is as bad as the other. We may not be the only species, but we are also a species. We don't have any special responsibility, just like nonsentient animals don't worry about animals they hunt to extinction, they just avoid causing destruction for its own sake.

[auroraglacialis]

Originally Posted by Human No More

All of those are important, but what's important is individuality and choice.

Yeah, you made that clear the first time.And yes, I think these are important as well

I wouldn't write off innovation so quickly. If all society was desstroyed, but humans survived, even if they were reduced to feral creatures, given time a new civilisation would arise. It might be better, it might be worse

Well maybe that is true and maybe it will be better if the cycle is repeated long enough - also a kind of evolution I suppose - those ways of life that are unsustainable collapse. It is a bit doubtful if industrialized civilization will occure again in the same way. Any future civilization will not have coal or oil. They will have only the trash heaps of this civilization as metal sources and much of the land will not be suitable for agriculture anymore (due to land degradation, erosion and climate catastrophe). If a new civilization arises, it would have from the beginning to do so with renewable energy sources and limited resource availability. Maybe this would indeed lead to a civilization that is very much aware of the balance they have to take into account? But this is distant future fiction now...

If you want to live without any comforts because you think it's better, then do it, but let everyone else live their own lives - while they should still actually be careful about the environment, there is no need to place it above all else.

It is not really my intention or desire to "live without all comforts". There are some, that have negative effects, yes, but for most parts, I am just not willing to let the planet go blip just because of cellphones and air conditioners.

Not in time. That's a very big difference. Based on past estimates of the future, 99% of major advances would never have happened.
Yes, I value wellbeing and quality of live above the environment, both are important and can easily be balanced (and the entire point ism, if you don't want such things, you don't have to take advantage of them), but they are not mutually exclusive.

So what - you are building the future on hope alone? On hope, that a miracle will happen just in time that "saves us all and the planet"??? Isn't that a bit salvationist?
How do you want to balance them really? To run a car, you need fuel, to build a car, you need materials, to make an electric car, you need different materials, so feed more people, you need more land,...

Regressing can be equally unsustainable, if not more so. If humanity regressed even a century or two from current levels, 90-95% of the population would probably be killed.

I'll ignore that you again talk about regression, but yes indeed, to live on this planet sustainably, population will have to be reduced. You make it sound like I would like to kill off 90% of them in some insane blast, but I never said that and in fact, a few posts back you was the one who said, that a lower population would be a prerequisite to have "sustainable development" - keeping and improving the "standard of living" without destroying the planet. Was that not so?

[species extinction 150/day]Not all of them are even caused by actions of others. Species DO die out, it's called natural selection.... As it is, many common species today would have likely gone extinct without human actions.

That is simply wrong. Natural extinction rates are several orders of magnitude below current rates. There is plenty of studies about that. Some species yes - a frog species living in some pond only will be gone if the next ice age swallows it, but what is happening now is crazy. At current rates, some estimates say that at the end of the century, 50% of the species will be gone. Land degradation leads to a yearly loss of 1% in agricultural viable land (despite adding new one by deforestation), this will lead to a decrease by 50% in 2050. Don't tell me, that the current way of life is not destroying the planet.

I don't quite get the difference. It is perfectly possible to utilise existing resources to last for as long as the Earth will.

How?

[critizising civ while beein in it]And nobody stops you, but it's easy to criticise something while still benefiting from it. It's a lot harder to still see only the negatives when you realise how difficult survival otherwise is.

It is not easy really - to wrap the head around this. But it is theoretical, yes, it is philosophical and admittedly my main focus in the debates here are to show the reasons for the dilemma and the need for it to stop. Collapse is one way to stop it. What other ways are in sight? Remember it has to happen soon, because the longer we wait, the worse it gets. Some ideas that have been proposed have shown signs of not beeing real long term solutions (pumping water from the ground onto fields in desert areas), others are not even proven to be applicable to the problem - certainly not within the timescale required (cheap nuclear fusion, asteroid mining).
So I am a bit negative here - talking mostly about what is going wrong and that it has to stop and not giving you a bright alternative you like (as you disregard anything that reminds you of "regression" as inadequade). But so far, the solutions I have heard from anyone in here to solve the problem otherwise are either ineffective (change lightbulbs, write your government, buy green products) or "potential future technologies" (bascially meaning that we do not know if, how and when they will exist).
A quote of one of the people in the political landscape of the country I live in said it nicely in respect to nuclear power: We are flying a plane without having an airport to land it.

I wouldn't put it in such black and white t erms myself, but if you insist, then yes. Both are important, and ignoring one on favour of the other is as bad as the other. We may not be the only species, but we are also a species. We don't have any special responsibility, just like nonsentient animals don't worry about animals they hunt to extinction, they just avoid causing destruction for its own sake.

This is not coherent - you state a bit above, that "Humans are capable of adapting, which is their only true strength, but means they are capable of much greater success than other species, in addition to sentience." - If that is the way humans differe from other animals, if that is the characteristic that justifies humans to exploit the planet and consume 40% of its photosynthetic capacity, how can you then say, that despite this, they do not have any special responsability???
Also, "ignoring one in favour of the other is as bad as the other" is not true. The world can go on very well without cellphones and cars, actually it will probably do better, while humans and cell phones do depend on the world around them. Without cellphones and cars, people in 1000 or 10.000 years will still be able to live in Spain and breathe air and drink water and eat plants there. If that goes away (climate change is going to turn many areas into a desert, water is polluted, nuclear waste is endangering the storage sites...), humans will not live in comfort anymore. In fact, this would probably kill 95% of the people with the remaining ones fighting over a few remaining liveable spots.

See - one of the two things can exist without the other, the other cannot. So if you really do favour that choice towards a higher "quality of life" over the environment, and that IS what you have said above - I really wonder how you can say of yourself, that you feel close to the NA'Vi. For them, the choice would be utterly clear.

[auroraglacialis]

Originally Posted by Banefull

do you really think that the Earth is alive? I was under the impression that it was a rock, a very valuable rock indeed.

That is one way to look at it, if you like. If it is just a rock floating in space with some chemical reactions taking place that we happen to call life...
I like to think of Earth a s a whole, but especially the biosphere which starts at >3km below the ground and reaches up several km above the surface, as a living system. In how far the solid earth itself in terms of geology takes part, I cannot say, but the ecology of the earth really is a living thing. It may not be any more sentient than trees (though some argue both of them could be), but it is alive for sure. All living beings are just parts of the bigger system.

Nature is not a being. It is an abstract concept; you cannot hurt it.

How do you define that? How do you define a being? Is a tree a being, is an animal?

How are we even stealing? Are we not part of nature too? When a gorilla takes a twig or a rock and uses it achieve his ends, what makes that different from a human using a twig or a rock also to achieve his ends?

We are stealing like this: We take things from the earth/nature to use them for ourselves and do not give them back in a way that is useful. If anyone takes a twig to use it as a tool and disposes of it, the twig will be eaten by insects and mushrooms. If people dig up minerals and oil, use chemistry to transform them, create toxic substances from it, use them and then release them, that is a different story. Or if people take uranium, put it in a reactor and produce a mixture of elements that will radiate and be toxic for a million years. That is a difference, as people take things, and either keep it or transform it into something that cannot be used or is toxic to others. If this stops, eventually these things would go away and the loot is returned, but that is also the case if the thief is arrested/shot.
And the thing is, humans are about the only animal that uses more resources than are replenished. Oil and mineral resources dont generate themselves within decades - they take millions of years.

And before you start saying that we are not using resources in the way that they are destroyed or vanish completely: This is true (for all except maybe nuclear fuels who are literally obliterated) - but to use resources they have to be accessible. If you take all the coal in the world and disperse it equally in the soils of all continents, it would not be a resource anymore. It would still be there, but no one could feasibly use it. Every time people put Titanium on their skins for sun protection, that element is dispersed.

We have a moral obligation to provide a better life for our children and for the next generation. If we truly care for them, then we would not over utilize our resources so that they may have some. We should care for the environment based upon our concern for others, not for nature itself. We preserve nature so that they can utilize it and experience its beauty.

Well - I can just say that we are hitting a philosophical barrier there. I have hit that before with people. I think, nature has a value in itself. People like you think it only has a value if it is of service to humans as a resource or for recreation. That is utterly anthropocentric. And frankly - how many generations are you talking about? At current cunsumption, it will be maybe 1-2. If miracolously the consumption is reduced by 50%, it is 2-4. I a snowball survives hell and consumption is reduced to 1/10th, it is 10-20 generations. Compare that to the number of generations that have lived on the planet before and it is merely the blink of an eye. The hope of people is, that there will be more miracles. That some new technology will be found that eliminates the need for using resources altogether. But there is no concept of that, it is merely hope. So this continued growth and expanding development is based on hope alone? Is that sane?

I subscribe to the view that there are higher forms of life. If a bacterial disease threatens us, we have a right to eliminate it for the sake of preserving human life. If we are suffering from predation from wolves, then we have a right to go and slay them to ensure our safety. If we need to eat, we have a right to go and hunt other animals for food. We have to take these concerns and balance them with the needs of the next generation also.

Well, try think not only of the next generation, but also of the next and the next - think seven generations (like the native americans do) or think 1000 years. How will it affect people in 1000 years if global warming happens, if mineral resources are depleted, if population is too high and if that is only 0.1 percent of the time it takes for nuclear waste to loose its dangers? The three examples are actually a bit different. I think it is very well within any law of nature to kill someone, who wants to kill you. Every animal will, if it can, kill another animal if it is a threat that cannot be scared away or if it is needed for sustencance. What is utterly wrong though is to see killing as the only option. You can for example wash your hands to avoid infections, close the doors and windows of your house to prevent wolves from coming in,... Equally wrong is to act according to the premise of the war of whites against native americans and say "you kill some of us, we will destroy all of you". It is wrong to retaliate one human victim by eliminating a whole species. And it is even worse to eliminate 150 species a day without them being a threat or food. Still, that is what people are doing now and it is what makes me sick.
Sure, they probably are of no use for us. If we can't eat them or they can't provide us with anything useful - who cares. Nature is only of value if it serves humans after all, so who cares about some ugly frog in the Amazon.

Sustainability for me is not forever. The world and the universe will end eventually. Trying to make resources last infinitely would be pointless.

Oh come one, dont start with these timescales again. Sure - sustainability in that sense is nonsense, but it makes sense for the maximum period of time life can profit from it. And that is not centuries, it is hundreds of millions of years. But even if you limit it to a tiny fraction of that, to 10000 years, merely the time humans invented agriculture. If you limit it to that time, it would be a nice start. Extract resources and use them in a way that for 10000 years people can do exactly the same? How would you manage this?

When we refer to renewable resources, we really refer to the cost as being renewable.

That is partly true and I adressed that already. If you change materials in a way that disables anyone from using them again or disperse them so finely that you cannot access them, it is near impossible to renew them. The cost you are talking about here is divided in two - energy and volume. The more degraded resources are, the more energy you need to extract them and the more volume of raw material you need. You can send big trucks to Vermont and take in all the topsoil and surface rocks and carry them to a power plant in the future and you can probably extract many tons of almost all valuable materials from it. But then you don't have Vermont anymore, but probably a lot of toxic byproducts. So it is not only about cost in terms of money, it is also cost in terms of energy (which is in itself limited), and cost in terms of environmental destruction you are willing to take.
And it is starting now - compare the grade of present day copper ore that is mined to 50 years ago. It is scary really how much larger the mines have to be, how much more energy you have to put into processing...

Also technology is ever pushing the cost at which we can utilize resources down at a steady rate.

Yeah. Just two words: Jevons Paradox:

when improvements in technology make it possible to use a fuel more efficiently, the consumption of the fuel tends to go up, not down.

Population growth rates have been declining [...] as development increases, population growth rate decreases.[...] I have no reason to believe that there will be an exponential growth rate in the future.

I think the reasons for decreasing population growth are not well understood. There are some correlations, but no cause and effect relationships. One reason seems to be that children in rich countries are expensive and large portions of people living in these countries have to think twice before havin another kid. Another reason is that people have become egocentric or they are caught up in the need for a carreer. Yet another reason is that people fear for the future and do not want to have children living in the world of the future. Ther are of course some more - womens education and quality and a stable social system can help. These often come with industrialization, but do in no way rely on it. At least I do not see how cellphones and cars make people have less children.
Additionally, countries with negative population growth due to birth rates panic. Germany for example starts to give people money for having kids, because the population declines. The idea is there, that a declining population means overaging societies, which is a strain on the lives of people.
Maybe the growth will level out for now, but probably it will not decline. And if there is at some time an incentive for people to have more kids, if it is somehow rewarding, affordable, seemingly safe, they will definitely pick up again.

[Sempu]

Part of what many people consider a problem with the current economic model of developed countries is that it depends upon continuous growth in population, which will of course lead to overpopulation. I don't have the complete argument to hand, but basically it is that new workers have to enter the workforce at an increasing level to support the flow of credit, which has to increase to support the fractional reserve system. I think. There's a really good animated video somewhere on Youtube on this.

So a country whose population declines is in trouble. Ditto for one whose youthful population declines. This is why the USA isn't that hell-bent on eliminating illegal immigration - the immigrants are younger and enter the workforce. Look at Japan: Their population has stabilized, decreased a little I think, and the ratio of old to young is much larger now than a few decades ago. Fewer young people supporting each older person. Their economy went rotten 20 years ago and hasn't recovered at all.

The problems with this model are serious and very hard to solve under capitalism. Depending upon continuous population growth to maintain affluence is a recipe for eventual disaster. And it's not like it could be solved by migrating the excess to another planet; you'd have to move millions of people a day off Earth to make a difference; try picturing a spacecraft system that could do that or what it would do to the atmosphere.

[caveman]

Originally Posted by Sempu

There's a really good animated video somewhere on Youtube on this.

YouTube - The Story of Stuff

Was this it?

(Oh shoot, I sense a debate coming)

[Sempu]

Originally Posted by caveman

YouTube - The Story of Stuff

Was this it?

That looks good, but the one I'm thinking of is specifically about credit and the fractional reserve system. (I have seen more than one animation on Youtube about the credit system, so it may be hard to find.)

Anyone who doesn't understand the fractional reserve system almost certainly has a gross misconception about how loans work and how money is created. If you do understand the fractional reserve system, you also understand why the recent suggestion of the head of the World Bank to return to a gold standard is so explosive.

[Tsyal Makto]

Though I am a bit more technologically liberal than aurora, I'm with her on this topic, at least in regards to how she views nature. The biggest disconnect it seems between her and Banefull is that Banefull tends to view nature in strictly economic terms, while aurora views it in more existential terms. This, IMO, is the key to ever finding balance again with the natural world. Anyway, it's currently 4:22AM, and Ive been up since 7:00AM, and if I tried thinking out anything lengthy my head would probably explode Scanners-style, so I'll just quote a post of mine on this subject from LN.

Even beyond simply the environmental message, is the underlining message of humanity needing to find true balance with nature, beyond what the current "green" mindset is.* *

Because in actuality, there is no "environment," where all the rest of the non-human plant and animal life is domed off in a seperate biosphere from us. There is no "human world" and "natural world," there is just "the world." Period. No matter how much we believe otherwise, humanity, and all it's baggage, is a part of the world, the same world that nature shares. The biggest downfall of the current environmentalist movement is this separatist attitude, and I'm sure if the Na'vi could see it they would declare the movement just as insane as every other Sky People activity because of this attitude. We might not be able to get the knowledge back that long gone indigenous peoples and the Na'vi have, but we can at least revive their mindset. We need to begin viewing the natural world as an equal again, and feel and view it the way these peoples do. Not until we can truly feel, See, the Earth and it's ills in the same deep, personal way native peoples do, will we be able to heal the world. THAT is the message of Avatar, not about buying a Prius and flourescent light bulbs, but about learning to See the world through the eyes of the people that walked in harmony with it. Then, and only then, will humanity be able to find a new way forward. Only when we are able to truly feel the effects of our actions, will we be able to change them. Only once we learn to See again will we be able to find balance with the Earth while still progressing, of true technological harmony. The way needs to be living with nature, not walling ourselves off from it.