David Suzuki getting wiser?

[quinton]

In this article published yesterday, Suzuki questions our plan for a perpetually growing economy in a finite planet, which ultimately means a societal goal of "producing more consumer goods":

http://www.davidsuzuki.org/about_us/Dr_David_Suzuki/Article_Archives/weekly02240601.asp

He links it to population in the end of the article also. He doesn't question global population growth and why Canada supports it via its mass immigration program, but at least he is starting to see the big picture.

It's important not to just get bogged down in any one of the thousands of symptomatic environmental disasters happening simultaneously around the globe.

It is important to see the root cause, which points to the problems of population growth and consumption growth.

Population growth and consumption growth are what assists the universal societal goal: economic growth.

Perhaps we should change our priorities while there are still forests and biodiversity left.

 

[I think not]

We have a population expected to reach seven billion in the coming decade, a limited supply of natural resources, looming environmental concerns and an economy whose sole purpose is to produce more and more stuff. This is a problem. It isn't working and it's time to find something else for our economy to do.

Like?

More philosophies and no realities. He should publish a report on how he intends to shift this economy of production (which by the way is bullshit, since 70-80% is service based), to a more "noble" economy that will reduce the consumption of goods.

 

[the caracal kid]

ITn, do not forget that the "service" industry services CONSUMPTION!

It IS indeed long since past time to move beyond the consumption of material goods.

With a finite amount of resources, say X, and the amount of resource per human Y, then it is clear that the greater the number of humans, the lower the value of Y. So if you want to be a little gluttonous piggie, the only option is reduce the number of humans competing for that finite X.

 

[quinton]

I think not, how about the noble goal of stopping population growth and consumption growth? This would preserve our quality of life by preventing a further decline in resources per capita and biodiversity. It would stop all environmental problems from growing, including pollution, desertification, deforestation, etc.

Do you really think service based industries that help economic growth aren't part of the environmental degradation process known as economic growth?

Last I checked, banks, tanning salons, haircutters, carpet cleaners, etc all use gas for transportation of their services and paper for invoices and bureaucracy, and they all need to heat or cool their offices.

The more business service industries do, the more environmental degradation. Perhaps less obvious than with goods industries, but the same nonetheless.

 

[Toro]

We have a population expected to reach seven billion in the coming decade, a limited supply of natural resources, looming environmental concerns and an economy whose sole purpose is to produce more and more stuff. This is a problem. It isn't working and it's time to find something else for our economy to do.

Like?

More philosophies and no realities. He should publish a report on how he intends to shift this economy of production (which by the way is bullshit, since 70-80% is service based), to a more "noble" economy that will reduce the consumption of goods.

Science and environmentalism isn't working. It's time to find something else for our environment to do.

So sayeth Toro, King of Environmental Knowledge.

 

[I think not]

Re: RE: David Suzuki getting wiser?

ITn, do not forget that the "service" industry services CONSUMPTION!

It IS indeed long since past time to move beyond the consumption of material goods.

With a finite amount of resources, say X, and the amount of resource per human Y, then it is clear that the greater the number of humans, the lower the value of Y. So if you want to be a little gluttonous piggie, the only option is reduce the number of humans competing for that finite X.

I understand that caracal, and I do agree. However, if you read his article, he is going under the presumption that production and consumption is the primary reason for destroying the environment, and I'll agree, little good has come of it. However, he doesn't offer any solution, what do you propose? Wipe out half the population of the planet or more and start over?

The problem is there is no solution, other than advancing more technologies and minimizing the damage. Even animal life consumes the resources and then moves on to another area to consume more of it, abd for all practical purposes you can say animals are the perfect communists :wink: . They are all equal and the only thing they want is to eat, drink and procreate.

Sorry, I don't buy this rhetoric.

 

[I think not]

Re: RE: David Suzuki getting wiser?

I think not, how about the noble goal of stopping population growth and consumption growth? This would preserve our quality of life by preventing a further decline in resources per capita and biodiversity. It would stop all environmental problems from growing, including pollution, desertification, deforestation, etc.

So now we have to stop life because David Suzuki says so? Come on! What are we supposed to do? Abort all children? Force people to stop having children? Find another solution, it's unnacceptable.

 

[quinton]

For starters developed countries like the US and Canada could stop supporting population growth by letting in immigrants from developing countries. There should be no more immigrants let in than emigrants who leave in a given year.

By allowing population to move from areas of high to low concentration, you assure that no wilderness can be preserved, and you speed up global population growth.

Secondly, reckless and unecessary consumption like air conditioners in Canada could be outlawed. My dad grew up in Nebraska with hotter summers than anywhere in Canada and he did not need any air conditioning... Why do Canadians have to create more nuclear power plants to sustain an unsustainable luxury?

We must fight against religious morons who are anti-abortion andn anti-birth control.

We must fight against politicians who give our money to GM and give our tax dollars to encourage welfare mothers to have more children.

The best way is to not work for the system by earning a high salary, and not consume any unecessary goods and services which don't make us happier, but just add more stress.

We must fight also against allowing Canada's resources to be exploited for short term economic gain as they are sent to other nations who have already plundered all of their own resources.

 

[Toro]

RE: David Suzuki getting

Nuclear power is the cleanest form of power there is.

 

[I think not]

Re: RE: David Suzuki getting wiser?

For starters developed countries like the US and Canada could stop supporting population growth by letting in immigrants from developing countries. There should be no more immigrants let in than emigrants who leave in a given year.

You are only looking at this from a national point of view, it does nothing for the other countries. In addition you are advocating for citizens to stop procreating, why would you suggest something like that?

By allowing population to move from areas of high to low concentration, you assure that no wilderness can be preserved, and you speed up global population growth.

I don't see how it speeds up growth.

Secondly, reckless and unecessary consumption like air conditioners in Canada could be outlawed. My dad grew up in Nebraska with hotter summers than anywhere in Canada and he did not need any air conditioning... Why do Canadians have to create more nuclear power plants to sustain an unsustainable luxury?

Why is temperature comfort a luxury? Besides, the hotter you feel the more water you consume, why don't you do the math and see what pays off since your hot on dragging us back to the middle ages?

We must fight against religious morons who are anti-abortion andn anti-birth control.

They are morons because they value life? What do you call a murderer? A active member of Greenpeace?

We must fight against politicians who give our money to GM and give our tax dollars to encourage welfare mothers to have more children.

:roll:

The best way is to not work for the system by earning a high salary, and not consume any unecessary goods and services which don't make us happier, but just add more stress.

So let's all quit our jobs, live in the woods and fish and kill for food, better?

We must fight also against allowing Canada's resources to be exploited for short term economic gain as they are sent to other nations who have already plundered all of their own resources.

Well that's your choice, but don't you think it will be sort of lonely on the planet?

 

[the caracal kid]

"So let's all quit our jobs, live in the woods and fish and kill for food, better?"

Why do you work, ITN? Identifying your own role via life-long conditioning is the begining.

 

[I think not]

Re: RE: David Suzuki getting wiser?

"So let's all quit our jobs, live in the woods and fish and kill for food, better?"

Why do you work, ITN? Identifying your own role via life-long conditioning is the begining.

I work because I get great pleasure by helping students go through university. I also work to eat, drink and enjoy a good book, watch a movie and hang out in my backyard in the summer getting drunk. I also work to be able to travel, meet new people from all over the world, and yeah, I also need my air conditioning because I can't stand the humidity.

 

[quinton]

Toro tell that to the people of Port Hope just east of Toronto who have their soil contaminated for miles around the nuclear power plant with radioactive waste.

Since McGuinty's new nuclear power plants will have aggressive deadlines, and tight budgets there will surely be more spills on top of the waste that will have to be "safely" sequestered away for hundreds of thousands of years.