Greener/Organic lead to world econmic collaspe???

amosworks

It's quite simply a strange set of ideas. Firstly I have many objections to sharing my wealth with the poor :-O But that's not really the point I guess. The two biggest things I believe are:

Firstly, with Peak Oil, all this mass travel to and fro will become much harder and people will start to stay put. The behemoths of central government will eventually not be able to function (they use up so much energy and are so wasteful!) and we will all go back to living a much happier more community based lifestyle with our indigenous folks, indigenous foods and indigenous cultures. Everything will be forced to be more green and natural, and it sounds bliss. We will eat what's local to us and in season instead of strange exotic fruits flown in from the other side of the planet. No more foreign holidays and no more dumping our waste in somebody elses country.

Secondly with so many millions of blacks and asians about to die in 3rd world countries from AIDS over the next few decades, the playing field will suddenly become a lot different. There simply won't be that many poor people around. I think people seem to keep forgetting that millions on millions of predominantly non-whites are about to die, and it's just around the corner. Can you really comprehend how much death that is?

Food for thought

tr3mor

HappySad wrote:

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?

Why do we need an answer?

Africa is in the developing world, when we were in the developing world we had corrupt leaders and civil wars.

Did anyone send us charity when we had the black death?

banthecar

tr3mor wrote:

Why do we need an answer?

Africa is in the developing world, when we were in the developing world we had corrupt leaders and civil wars.

Did anyone send us charity when we had the black death?

I think the difference now is that there is a more of a correlation between the wealth we enjoy and the suffering of the developing world and I think we do have an obligation to help if we consider ourselves ethical human beings.

Amosworks - I'm sure a lot of people will die from aids - and many more when the oil economy is no longer capable of sustaining a global population of 6 billion and more. but i dont think that will solve the poverty problem.

Living locally and sustainably is a nice idea that a lot of us like the sound of - but there is going to be a lot of suffering before we get to that point. If everyone in th UK was to live on an organic locally grown diet including meat we could only support a population of 20 million , not the 60 million we are currently at. That is of course unless we change to a predominantly vegan diet. Plus if you think we can run cars on bio diesel in the future this will make the position even more unsustainable http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2004/11/23/feeding-cars-not-people/
I dont want to make people depressed - just to make people aware of what is facing us over the next 50 years.

caroline1973lefty

this is such an interesting and huge debate, thanks OP. one that i've been thinking about for a long time and still don't know a lot of the answers.

some sites that are interesting are:

http://www.earthday.net/footprint/index.asp - calculate your ecological footprint and then see if you can get it down to a sustainable level. pretty difficult to do, particularly with current government and economic priorities that are beyond our immediate control. eating less meat, flying not at all, and living in more communal settings, seem to be the key things that make a big difference. wouldn't be all bad, possibly? (i'm holidaying on the Med by train next year!).


https://www.wdm.org.uk, the world development movement, it is a campaigning group that looks at the root causes of poverty in poorer countries.

https://www.nef.org.uk - the new economics foundation

https://www.practicalaction.org.uk - if i had lots of money to give to charity i'd give to this one. it focuses on giving people the practical tools they need - used to be called 'Appropriate Technology' i think.

https://www.oneplanetliving.org.uk - the WWF has published a report which shows that if everyone lived as the average british person does, we'd need 3 planets. which suggests we need to reduce our consumption by a two thirds. personally i think if we don't address looming environmental crises soon, we're going to have this forced on us. so i'd rather think about it now and try and make an effort to reduce my own consumption in ways that I chose, rather than have it forced on me through environmental and political collapse. The report, called 'Living Planet', also looks at the UN's indicators of decent lifestyle, eg life expectancy, literacy, as well as sustainability. interestingly the only country that met the WWF's criteria on both fronts was Cuba - funny that didn't make it into the mainstream media!! there is ample evidence that countries with smaller differences between rich and poor do much better in quality of life indicators. another book on this subject which is quite good is 'happiness' by richard layard.

A book I'd recomend is 'how we can save the planet' by Mayer Hillman which convicingly argues that we need to reduce our (british) carbon emssions by 90%. He supports a policy called 'contract and converge' which allows poorer countries to develop in a way that is fair, whilst reducing the West's carbon emissions. (George Monbiot's book 'Heat' is an attempt to show that this is possible without collapsing the economy, though it requires some pretty quick and strong action by government on renewable energy etc).

a last point - failing to take action on the environment will lead to economic collapse anyway. the stern report last month made this clear. al gore's film also makes the point forcefully - he shows how Ford and General Motors have suffered ecnoomically by producing polluting cars that consumers are now turning away from, whilst Toyota which has innovated and produced the eco-friendly prius has done really well. there are loads of jobs in neccessary environmental projects like insulating peoples homes - it is a questino of whether we make our politicians have the political will for it.

margaretclare

I agree, this is the kind of interesting debate we need to have and the points made so far have been very valid and thought-provoking.

I recently listened to the Prime Minister of New Zealand on BBC Radio 4 'Woman's Hour'. They are feeling their economy threatened by all the talk of reducing food miles since they produce a lot of food which comes to our tables - NZ lamb, butter etc - and they're concerned. She pointed out that their exports mostly come by sea and that's a much more environmentally-friendly way of exporting food than by jumbo-jet. She asked that we not just look at 'food miles' in terms of distance, full stop, but how the goods are transported.

I am as guilty as anybody else - did I really need to have roses for my wedding in January 2002, roses imported from God-knows-where?

However, DH and I do live as simply as we can. We live well, we live comfortably, but we live simply. I'm starting to grow things to eat in containers - not physically able to do 'real' gardening. I go to the local farmers' market, but that's only March - November every month. We put things into recycling or the compost bins in the garden. If only everyone would do what they can - far too many people have their heads in the sand and wouldn't understand a debate like this one. People are thoughtless, mindless - the amount of litter just thrown about, drinks cans, McDonald's bags, kebab containers, demonstrates that.

Someone mentioned population size. Well, that's another huge can of worms, and for anyone even to raise this topic is to be met with cries of 'racist'. But it's a fact - we're a small island. The recent policies on immigration, given the figures that are extrapolated for the future, make me think that politicians are insane and I weep for my descendants.

Margaret

banthecar

It's true Margaret - Population is the key to all of this. Any good we do by cutting back on resources will be undone as the global population increases from 6 billion at present to a suggested 9 billion in the next few decades.

As you say it's a very touchy subject. I often think that anti-abortionists would be better off investing their energys in to being pro-contraceptive. They would achieve more positive results because there wouldnt be a child to abort in the first place.

We cant just expect developing nations to cut down family sizes because thats where we perceive the problem to be.
If we face a position where environmental migrants are arriving in our country, then because we have been complicit in the destruction of the global environment I believe we have an obligation to help.

tr3mor

banthecar wrote:

We cant just expect developing nations to cut down family sizes because thats where we perceive the problem to be.

That is where the problem lies though.

Take Ethiopia as an example. A country that is supposed to be a huge blot on western conscience. Its population in 1900 was 5 million, its current population is 65 million, by 2050 it'll be 145 million.

Not to sound callous but is it any wonder there are famines there?

Cardew

tr3mor wrote:

That is where the problem lies though.

Take Ethiopia as an example. A country that is supposed to be a huge blot on western conscience. Its population in 1900 was 5 million, its current population is 65 million, by 2050 it'll be 145 million.

Not to sound callous but is it any wonder there are famines there?

That neatly sums up the dilemma that frankly we have to face up to.

Nobody can fail to be moved by the plight of those in the Horn of Africa and admire the efforts of Bob Geldorf etc to bring the desperate situation to our attention.

However to be quite blunt the topography of that area does not allow a small proportion of its current population be self sufficient; let alone its projected population. The developed Nations, with the best of intentions, pour aid into the region which inevitably leads to increased birth rate and exacerbates the situation.

What do we do?

Withdraw aid and see the videos of millions of children starving to death brought into our living rooms?

Compulsory sterilization?

Forcible expatriation to the developed world where they will become an underclass; either exploited or living off charity.

Or delude ourselves that we can set up industries where the indigenous population can enjoy a fulfilled existence producing ????

banthecar

Education and promoting the use of contraceptives has to be the key to this. When people become aware of the benefits of having smaller families - we might see a change starting to happen.
I think its important to remain optomistic in the face of all this - who knows, Durex could save the planet

Cardew

banthecar wrote:

Education and promoting the use of contraceptives has to be the key to this. When people become aware of the benefits of having smaller families - we might see a change starting to happen.
I think its important to remain optomistic in the face of all this - who knows, Durex could save the planet

I recall seeing a discussion on TV a long while ago on contraception in the Third World. Several academics were expounding theories while a Nun on the panel sat quietly saying nothing.

When she was finally asked for her views she said that the first obstacle was to convince people that babies were born as a result of an act that occurred 9 months previously.

Secondly it is their culture to have as many children as possible in the hope that some will survive to support their parents in their old age.

She was firmly of the opinion that voluntary contraception would be largely ineffective and take many generations before it started to have any measurable effect.

Certainly the chance of getting men to use Durex would be zero - the pill(male or female) will be the only option other than sterilization.