View RSS Feed

Memories of the 28th Century

Sustainability

Rating: 2 votes, 5.00 average.
I had been wondering exactly people were meaning by ďsustainabilityĒ, so I looked around the internet, and I still donít know, but I get a general impression that some people think that the world should be preserved as the exact thing that they love. It appears that they think that if they can get everyone to act the way they want, then the world will be nicer.

The EPA has this on its website, and it is a set of pleasant pap. Yes, in an ideal world things would be nice.

What is sustainability?
Sustainability is based on a simple principle: Everything that we need for our survival and well-being depends, either directly or indirectly, on our natural environment. Sustainability creates and maintains the conditions under which humans and nature can exist in productive harmony, that permit fulfilling the social, economic and other requirements of present and future generations.

Sustainability is important to making sure that we have and will continue to have, the water, materials, and resources to protect human health and our environment.

What is EPA doing?
Sustainability has emerged as a result of significant concerns about the unintended social, environmental, and economic consequences of rapid population growth, economic growth and consumption of our natural resources.

In its early years, EPA acted primarily as the nationís environmental watchdog, striving to ensure that industries met legal requirements to control pollution. In subsequent years, EPA began to develop theory, tools, and practices that enabled it to move from controlling pollution to preventing it.

Today EPA aims to make sustainability the next level of environmental protection by drawing on advances in science and technology to protect human health and the environment, and promoting innovative green business practices.
http://www.epa.gov/sustainability/basicinfo.htm

The Wall Street Journal had this wonderful article about sustainable capitalism. A brief scan should tell one enough about it.
http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/...92682864215896

It appears that this sustainability thing is about retaining the present state of affairs forever, or for a long time anyway. That concept is interesting by itself, because in the past humans worked to change things, improve things, and keeping what exists assumes that the present situation is what someone wants, and I don't meet many people who feel that way.. The idea of sustaining things rather than improving seems to go hand-in-hand with some other ideas that are politically correct even though they are based in clouds. Sustaining the present culture would mean sustaining a population of about seven billion humans, and I think that everyone who has bothered to think about it knows that that number of humans is not sustainable. Right now there is enough food being produced to feed everyone, or would be, if there werenít problems in distribution. But the Earth has an unstable atmosphere that creates droughts, floods, and other extremes in weather. The kind of disruption that forced the Ancient Ones to leave their homes in the American Southwest, and that pushed the Mongols into conquering their neighbors (and most of Asia and Europe) may return along with their widespread famines, pestilences, and starvation.

If people are serious about creating a sustainable society, then they should work first to reduce population to less than two billion. But I get the feeling that people arenít serious about sustainability; they just want everyone to act as they would like. I can understand that, and the world would be a much nicer place, if I were made emperor, but neither situation is likely.

It is much more likely that nasty, Draconian limitations on human activity will be imposed by people who think they known better than anyone else, and we already know what such psychological problems lead to. Considering that Al Gore was one of the authors of one of sillier articles that Iíve seen about sustainability, the idea that dictatorial action may attempted is highly likely.

If we are to have sustainability, then the first thing is to determine what should be sustained. It appears that the people who write on this subject simply assume that what they like should be sustained, and what they donít like should be suppressed. We need some debate here. The situations that make the present society unsustainable are mostly matters of nice things being imposed without consideration of future consequences.

As one example, we are still hearing about expansion of medical care, even though the medical industry is one of the main causes why things have become unsustainable. If itís broken, then fix it, and the expansion of medicine certainly is a matter that needs to be corrected, not continued. If something has caused problems, then we should wonder if maybe it should be changed in major ways.

Another item that has to be addressed is the lack of effective education. People finish post-secondary educations and still donít know how to tell the difference between fact and opinion, nor do they know how to tell whether something has been demonstrated as fact. These gaps in educational systems have resulted in propaganda has been swallowed wholesale, and many people are living their lives as if propaganda and advertisements were actual facts. There have always been people who were easily duped, but it seems that the majority has forgotten how to avoid being duped. A sustainable world would have effective education, education that would teach people the difference between fact and fancy, the difference between marketing and reality. That would hurt some businesses that are built on hype. We can hope.

Obviously, real sustainable thinking would push out hype, and much of what the sustainability crowd wants now is hype.

But we have to start somewhere, and education is a better place than some. We have to demand that students complete a secondary education with a good understanding of logical and with the ability to recognize logical fallacies. That kind of an education would quickly lead to other changes. The educational establishment would have trouble pulling the wool over the eyes of anyone, if the students were pointing out the holes in their logic.


Another facet of the sustainability movement is that it is an action by the New World Order. As I pointed out, sustainability defies logic, and that is typical of how the New World Order operates, simply making wild assertion and expecting everyone to accept, as if they were serving chocolate chip cookies.

Are there any members of the sustainability movement or of the New World Order who could comment on this?

Comments