Greener/Organic lead to world econmic collaspe???

HappySad

Would leading a greener and organic lifestyle for EVERYONE in the world would it lead to economic collaspe?.. would this be a good thing?

Would wealth sharing in the world with EVERYONE mean that we all end up being very poor?

What if we ALL consumed much much less, recycled and reused just as close to 100% could life be very bad for us all.

We are so rich in the West and I wonder if we all shared our wealth with the poorer half of the world .. what would life be like for everyone? Would we be material poorer?.. how much poorer? .... Would we be happier...?

What if the whole of the UK became completely green/organic. Reduce consumsion, reuse and recycle100%. Would we be richer in our lifes? Woud we free up resources to allow us to do less hours in the office/factory? Would we be richer?

What do you think? Do you have any evidence to back your ideas?

Sometime I think that we are rich because the 3rd world are poor. Companies work hard to keep this that way and I think that if we really opened up markets and shared our wealth that we would all fall down the whole of poverty... or is there plenty to go round and all the money in concentrated in less than 1% of the people and we would therefore all be richer. But who wants to be rich when being happy is far more better. We could be poorer if wealth is shared but at least if we ALL have enough to meet basic life needs (water, food, education, social connection friends/family, shelter, work) then this could be enough for everyone.

What do you think on this? Does anyone know more about this? Point me to any good websites that can help? Books?

Ken68

Not convinced, Happy, that sharing my wealth or our wealth, has anything to do with world poverty.
I grow veg and fruit,foraging too, no need to buy from anywhere.
The local greengrocers loses out, and so do the banana republics.
I buy things from, say, Lidls, cheap as chips, probably made in China, good for them and their poor, good for me, it's all I can afford.
Buying produce produced locally, is the next option. Carting stuff halfway round the world cannot be a good thing for the environment, so world poverty and such doesn't come into it.
I have some thoughts about The Green Party that doesn't bear printing.

IvanOpinion

I generally think that all that will happen will be that everybody becomes poorer except for a small group who will exploit everybody and hold the world to ransom. The rich west does exlpoit poorer countries, in particular I have had the displeasure of spending a few days in a sweat shop that manufactured clothes .. the conditions were horrendous, dangerous, children running around heavy duty equipment and all because the rich west wanted some tacky little logos on their training shoes and tee shirts .. and I should add that it was considered one of the better places .. some of the others utilised slave and child labour to provide us wuith 'designer' goods.

I don't have any answers because the balancing act would be horrendous, the standard of living in the west would have to drop massively and even then that may bring very little gain to the poor countries unless they can support themselves (which many can not .. therefore who would they have to fall back on).

Ivan

caffeinehit

In my view, the only possible answer to the food miles vs poverty dilemma is to chop subsidies and import taxes completely, while at the same time taxing the cr*p out of transport to an extent that reflects the expected costs of mitigating or coping with climate change. A properly thought out carbon trading scheme would have the same effect.

Suddenly, buying as locally as possible would look like a far more attractive option to Western consumers. Producers in developing countries wouldn't be competing with subsidised European/American imports so would be able to sell their own produce in their own countries. The price of the goods themselves will rise on the world markets meaning producers will continue to be able to make money by exporting goods that Western consumers value. So overall (in theory at least) no-one's going to be any worse off but carbon emissions come down dramatically.

banthecar

I believe that we do live at the expense of developing nations.
You might enjoy reading "Practical Ethics" by Peter Singer. It cover a whole range of topics from animal rights and abortion to environmentalism.
He also talks about relative and absolute poverty. Even the poorest people in our own society would be considered wealthy when judged in relation to developing nations. Singer suggests we should give 10% of our income to charity, and i'm beginning to think he's right. We just squander our resources in the west.
I believe the lifestyle we currently enjoy will be a blip in the history of the human race. The current situation is completely unsustainable and has been artificaially propped up by oil money for the last 60 years. As we reach and pass peak oil we will begin to realize the folly of our ways.
I can see the attraction of living a simpler life (he says typing on a computer) and am quite looking forward to the post-industrial age (that is if I survive to see it)
I for one am prepared to see a drop in living standards. As the enjoyment i get from life comes from the simple things - juggling, riding my bike, reading a book and playing the tin whistle - all things i'll still be able to do when the oil runs out as long as i can get oil for my bike chain so i can ride to the library

If people think they are "doing their bit" by recycling - i'm sorry - it just isnt going to be enough. Reducing consumption is the most important of the 3 r's - thats why it comes first!

you may also want to check https://www.monbiot.com
Monbiot is one of the most intelligent writers on the subject of global warming and peak oil amonst other things.

Cardew

banthecar wrote:

Even the poorest people in our own society would be considered wealthy when judged in relation to developing nations. Singer suggests we should give 10% of our income to charity, and i'm beginning to think he's right.

If only there was a way of ensuring that any money we donate reaches its intended recipients.

It seems to me that there are two problems:

Firstly, despite the efforts of the Charity Commission it is very clear that huge amounts go missing:

http://news.scotsman.com/topics.cfm?tid=865&id=643952004
and that just for a small country like Scotland.

Whilst it is necessary to pay professional fundraisers high salaries, many charities set up reserves that continue to fund the salaries of their employees even when their fundraising efforts are in decline. Charity begins at home?

Secondly, the level of corruption in Third World countries is staggering. Billions in aid and charity donations are simply misappropriated.

A Google will reveal the extent of both problems.

Personally I have tried to be selective in any charity to whom I have donated money, and have a huge admiration for the efforts of the volunteers at the ‘sharp end’ who go into the field.

However I have the nagging feeling that more of my money over the years has gone toward buying Mercedes limousines for executives in this country, and Government officials abroad.

banthecar

Cardew, I think you are right about corruption and we do need to be carefull about which charities we give to.
In america they have charity navigator http://www.charitynavigator.org/ i'm not sure if there is anything similar for the uk.

Cardew

banthecar wrote:

Cardew, I think you are right about corruption and we do need to be carefull about which charities we give to.
In america they have charity navigator http://www.charitynavigator.org/ i'm not sure if there is anything similar for the uk.

The Charity Commission has a lot of power, but given the nature of many donations it is almost impossible to do a full audit trail.

I think many people would be dismayed at the small % of donations to the Third World charities that reaches those countries; and having got there, it is hived off.

murpen

HappySad wrote:

Would leading a greener and organic lifestyle for EVERYONE in the world would it lead to economic collaspe?.. would this be a good thing?

Some people would say that it is more likely to be the other way around, i.e. an economic collapse will force everyone to reduce consumption and lead greener lifestyles.

HappySad

Just read your threads. Economic collaspe would force us all to be less consuming and greener.

I think/believe that with us consuming less we would be better off. For me personally I really work hard to consume less for econimic as well as environmental reasons. The benefits is that I am able to spend the savings on not things but services that give me a better life (e.g cleaner & home help during time when baby is born, gym membership). I have found that purely from being greener I am better off. I waste mess money on stuff that I would not really want. I am still able to lead just about the same life in using stuff but now I borrow & reuse.

If as a country we all went VERY green I think that we would be economically better off. We would import less - goods/stuff and oil/gas. Then this would mean that we would be less dependant on the manipulations of other contries that have goods/oil-gas that we MUST have.

I have really felt that I have not gone with out even though I am not spending money on new things.

Some countries in Africa and the middle east are so corrupt!!! The leaders/voted priministers/kings just keep all the money to themselves and leave the country fighting in useless wars. I mean How many billions does it take to make a corrupt leader happy? Answers?

We are very rich here and you would only really understand this if you came from a poor country. I have visited a poorer country and when I came back to England I then really realised ALL that we have. NHS, libraries, roads, street lights, >10 choices of natural yogart, customer service, free schools, quality TV (yes our TV IS the BEST in the world).... the list goes on.

I think that if we consumed less then we would free up resouces for the poorer. But would the poor get richer in a corrupt country. If WE (rich and poor) had a war on poverty instead of drugs and really put our money where your mouths are then I am sure that the world against the few corrupt leaders will eventually get somewhere over sometime.

I am prepared to have less stuff so that others can be better off & not just surviving and poor. Life is better with less stuff anyway.. we all know what it is like when we clear out a room of junk/stuff.. so we just need to not buy the stuff inthe first place.

I now think that being greener is the way for a better life for us rich and with the goverments they can use our added greener wealth and influence to help the poorer countries.

Don't really know much about all this would like to know what you think?

banthecar

HappySad wrote:

.. so we just need to not buy the stuff in the first place.


This is so true.
This is a post that I put on my blog (https://www.onelesscar.blogspot.com) a few weeks back about green consumerism:

.........................
I often cringe at the term “green consumer”. A lot of people love to shop, and I think that many of them see “green shopping” as “doing their bit” – whilst still being able to shop shop shop. Aren’t I good buying this hemp cd holder made by Guatamalan peasants!

At the end of the day it comes down to the simple fact that modern society has been built on this desire to consume, and it is a pattern of behaviour that has quickly become part of our psyche.

I certainly don’t think it helps to identify ourselves as consumers – green or any other type.

Ethical consumerism is a bit of a paradox – I don’t see how you can identify yourself as a consumer and consider yourself ethical.

The truth is we need to work less, spend less and do less.

This is a point of view that has been expressed much more clearly than I can by a comment that I have noticed posted on a few different blogs recently, and I think it is well worth repeating here as well. The piece is written by someone called sushil yadav.
You may not agree with everything in the article but it will certainly make you think.

Here are some of the best quotes:

The Environment can be saved only if we stop production of most [more than 99% ] of the consumer goods we are making today. The Environment cannot be saved by recycling. The attempt of an industrial society to save the environment by recycling is like shooting someone 10,000 times and then trying to save him by taking out one bullet.

We can never save the environment by doing something. We can only save it by doing less of what we have been doing - much less of what we have been doing. If we want to save environment we will have to reduce human activity [overactivity] by 99%.
We can have Sustainable Lifestyle.
We cannot have Sustainable Development.
Development can never be sustainable.
Sustainability and Development cannot exist together.
Development and Sustainability are opposites.
Development and Sustainability are contradictory.
Sustainable Living is associated with consuming less – being satisfied with a simple and frugal life.
Development is associated with never ending desires – always wanting more.
Industrial Societies can never be sustainable – When you make thousands of consumer goods you kill Nature - you kill Animals, Trees, Air, Water and Land.
A Society that does mental work [city based] can never be sustainable - it will keep on making consumer goods - destroying the environment moment by moment.
Only agriculture-based societies that do physical work can be sustainable.

full article here
http://www.earthnewswire.com/index.php?option=com_forum&Itemid=89&page=viewtopic&t=11
.........
some interesting points raised by sushil yadav there I think you'll agree. Ive already decided to work less - I have told my employer that i am taking all of next August off. I have a 2nd job as a juggler / performer so that keeps me busy in the summer - so I dont see the point of sitting in the office 5 days a week as well, plus i'll be able to spend more time with the kids.

Ultimately i'd love to be self sufficient and just do the juggling job but that is probably just a pipe dream. But my wife has just qualified as a midwife and when she gets a job our income will double and we will be able to start clearing our debt. I think a realistic goal would be for both of us to work part time eventually - a 3 day week would suit me fine.