12 Aug 09
2 edits
Originally posted by whodey[/b]Define "harm mankind", please. E.g. do you feel a harm is done to you if you can't buy a Hummer? Is the lack of a hairspray harming you in any way other than your hairstyle?
What the evironment can take and cannot take is not always a clear cut matter. In fact, it reminds me of a documentary on Mount St. Helens after it erupted years ago. After the eruption scientists said that the immediate areas would remain desolate for years to come, however, the immediate area bounced back to life with amazing ease and left them spell boun d until it engulfs this tiny little planet and it will all happen "natrually". Go figure?
Look, I won't get into a minimalist discussion, taking an example as a rule, or how the river next to your town had no fishes and now salmons swim and dance there.
Rather, let's talk about it at principle level. The estimation is that 20% of the world population consumes 80% if the world's resources, and any production process implies some sort of destruction. To keep pace of production to provide goods for the developed countries makes no sense at principle level. It is impossible!
Moreover, there's the global trend of everybody 'developing', and few stop to think that developing countries will never catch up with developed ones, for the simple reason that the developed countries have a handicap of years over the developing ones, and their wealth was built on quite some abuse to the environmental, social and cultural diversity, which the developing ones cannot do... because there's no New World for them to discover and plunder.
So the limits are being pushed, no doubts. Of course, if your idea of development is evolutionist, economicist, and individualist, we can't agree on anything.
12 Aug 09
Originally posted by SeitseWhat do you mean by "destruction" caused by production? Are all forms of production unsustainable? I don't think so.
Define "harm mankind", please. E.g. do you feel a harm is done to you if you can't buy a Hummer? Is the lack of a hairspray harming you in any way other than your hairstyle?
Look, I won't get into a minimalist discussion, taking an example as a rule, or how the river next to your town had no fishes and now salmons swim and dance there.
Rather, let' ...[text shortened]... World for them to discover and plunder.
So the limits are being pushed, no doubts.[/b]
As for the developing countries: that's just blatant nonsense. There is no reason why developing countries can't catch up with or surpass developed ones. A simple and obvious example is the USA.
12 Aug 09
1 edit
Originally posted by KazetNagorraOf course there are sustainable forms of production, where have I stated the contrary? Sustainable, though, means to allow the environment to regenerate and that implies certain method plus some waiting time to go at it again.
What do you mean by "destruction" caused by production? Are all forms of production unsustainable? I don't think so.
As for the developing countries: that's just blatant nonsense. There is no reason why developing countries can't catch up with or surpass developed ones. A simple and obvious example is the USA.
Like wind energy. It takes about 3 months of the wind generator producing energy to make the same amount of energy it was invested in its construction and setup.
As per the second statement, please refrain from making statements such as 'nonsense' only because in your head there's a different idea. There is a severe cost for development if development is seen as economic growth, something measurable by aggregate indices. If that's your idea of development, and you don't believe that for developing countries to be like developed countries as we know them today the developed have to make some sacrifices, then we're on different grounds.
Read some Rist's "History of Development" as a starter. Highly recommended.
12 Aug 09
Originally posted by SeitseWhat needs to "regenerate"? Is a city for example unsustainable?
Of course there are sustainable forms of production, where have I stated the contrary? Sustainable, though, means to allow the environment to regenerate and that implies certain method plus some waiting time to go at it again.
Like wind energy. It takes about 3 months of the wind generator producing energy to make the same amount of energy it was invested in its construction and setup.
The problem with wind energy, although it is useful in some areas, is that electrical power cannot be stored, so in order to maintain the reliability of power generation, you can only generate a modest percentage of all power needed using wind power.
12 Aug 09
Originally posted by KazetNagorrahttp://books.google.com/books?id=NpV64yAbBvQC&printsec=frontcover&dq=history+of+development#v=onepage&q=&f=false
What needs to "regenerate"? Is a city for example unsustainable?
The problem with wind energy, although it is useful in some areas, is that electrical power cannot be stored, so in order to maintain the reliability of power generation, you can only generate a modest percentage of all power needed using wind power.
You're a student here in Finland, right?
Go to Metsätalo, next to Kaisaniemi, to the Tiedekunnan kirjasto, and get the book for free, You'll love it. I disagree with many statements made by Rist, but that doesn't mean it has great arguments about how the West has sold the idea of development that is convenient to its consumerist dynamic.
12 Aug 09
Originally posted by SeitseNo, I returned to Holland 2 days ago.
http://books.google.com/books?id=NpV64yAbBvQC&printsec=frontcover&dq=history+of+development#v=onepage&q=&f=false
You're a student here in Finland, right?
Go to Metsätalo, next to Kaisaniemi, to the Tiedekunnan kirjasto, and get the book for free, You'll love it. I disagree with many statements made by Rist, but that doesn't mean it has great arguments a ...[text shortened]... how the West has sold the idea of development that is convenient to its consumerist dynamic.
12 Aug 09
Originally posted by utherpendragonlol. You make it seem like both options are equally valid.
Water was shut off to California farms because of endangered Delta Smelt Fish that need this fresh water. Should the water be shut off for the fish or should the water be turned back on for the farmers to water their crops and to employee people?
..
I live in Canada, and i'm pretty sure I can live without california strawberry's for a few weeks
12 Aug 09
1 edit
Originally posted by uzlessa few missing weeks of strawberries is a bit of a understatement dont you think?
lol. You make it seem like both options are equally valid.
I live in Canada, and i'm pretty sure I can live without california strawberry's for a few weeks
Unemployment rates are now 40% because of the water being shut off to farmers. Hundreds of acres of crops are now dead. 1 million acres of fields and orchards also have no aboveground water supply. People have to go to food banks for food. Fruits and vegetable prices have skyrocketed in central California.
12 Aug 09
Originally posted by utherpendragonPeople have to go to food banks because there is no social security.
a few missing weeks of strawberries is a bit of a understatement dont you think?
[b]Unemployment rates are now 40% because of the water being shut off to farmers. Hundreds of acres of crops are now dead. 1 million acres of fields and orchards also have no aboveground water supply. People have to go to food banks for food. Fruits and vegetable prices have skyrocketed in central California.[/b]
12 Aug 09
Originally posted by utherpendragonWell, their practices were unsustainable, so they can take a hike.
a few missing weeks of strawberries is a bit of a understatement dont you think?
[b]Unemployment rates are now 40% because of the water being shut off to farmers. Hundreds of acres of crops are now dead. 1 million acres of fields and orchards also have no aboveground water supply. People have to go to food banks for food. Fruits and vegetable prices have skyrocketed in central California.[/b]