I know I have amongst my readers a diverse collection of pinko commie liberals, capitalist pigs, dirty hippies, god-bothering republicans, and bloody-minded anarchists. So, in the noble interests of comment-whoring, I thought I’d throw out some debate fodder.
So. Sustainable development. Permaculture. Getting off the grid. Living in harmony with nature. Eschewing packaged goods made by multinational corporations. Avoiding GM foods. Consuming no more than you produce.
On the one hand, it holds the promise of making us less dependent on exhaustible resources. It can mean a higher overall quality of life. It frees us from the guilt of depending on exploitive labor practices here and in other countries.
On the other hand, it means withdrawing from an economic network which supports hundreds of millions of lower-income workers at home and abroad. An economic machine that has, in some cases, revolutionized entire countries in a single generation from third-world dictatorship to thriving, wealthy democracy. It means withholding our capital from a vast swath of farming, manufacturing and services industries. It can mean eliminating our demand for products which may be some poor families’ only stable source of income.
So in the final analysis, from the global perspective, is pursuing this way of life moral, or immoral?
Discuss.
Moral or immoral?
Neither. I think it is amoral. Living independent of exhaustible resources isn’t a moral issue. At least not for me. If I can live in such a way that I, or my family is meeting most or all of my/our needs – the only moral thing I’m touching on here is caring for my family. The world is not my problem.
Until I make it my problem. When I look out and see the millions(?) starving or dying of disease due to poor living conditions or whatever – what shall I do? Support sweat shops? Join the Peace Corps? Make a donation to a trustworthy organization whose mission it is to help those people?
I don’t think I could, in good conscience, support the labor of folks working in sweat shops in other countries. Although I don’t pay much attention now to where things are made. I might pay more attention the more I move toward a self-sustaining way of life. This here is a moral issue for me to iron out in time.
In the end, though, pursuing a self-sutaining way of life, in my estimation, is neither moral nor immoral.
Moral or immoral?
Neither. I think it is amoral. Living independent of exhaustible resources isn’t a moral issue. At least not for me. If I can live in such a way that I, or my family is meeting most or all of my/our needs – the only moral thing I’m touching on here is caring for my family. The world is not my problem.
Until I make it my problem. When I look out and see the millions(?) starving or dying of disease due to poor living conditions or whatever – what shall I do? Support sweat shops? Join the Peace Corps? Make a donation to a trustworthy organization whose mission it is to help those people?
I don’t think I could, in good conscience, support the labor of folks working in sweat shops in other countries. Although I don’t pay much attention now to where things are made. I might pay more attention the more I move toward a self-sustaining way of life. This here is a moral issue for me to iron out in time.
In the end, though, pursuing a self-sutaining way of life, in my estimation, is neither moral nor immoral.
random thoughts.. part 1.
Evil commie-pinko-liberal here…
This question has no single answer, obvioiusly, but a multitude of them.. which is pretty much how I see almost all ethical questions–they are overdetermined by the vast number of impacting sets of values that we all hold–and thus, it just depends on which values we prioritize and then apply to the problem….
anyway.. my main point here would be that, personally, I feel that if you take time-frame’s into account–and more importantly–if you emphasize the long-term, that sustainability is the goal to be striven for rather than just continuing on in this system of short-term exploitation of non-renewable energy sources..i.e. it is more moral to sacrifice in the short term for a better long-term outcome than the reverse…
The reasons I think this kind of situation is the case are incoherently elaborated below….
(Note–however–that I’m not one for moving “entirely” off the grid.. I think electricity is awesome–I love hot-water for showers–and I think plastic–with its multitude of uses–is a phenomenal technology…. So.. perhaps this will help situate my comments a bit more..)
anyway… My argument
Yes.. the vast consumption machine that we are living on right now is really incredible.. It does provide a lot of work to people in other countries–and they do become more advanced..
But…. the questions I have…
1. Is this system stable? Personally, I don’t think so… in fact, trying to have everyone on the planet attain the state where they use 5 times as much resources as everyone else is inherently ludicrous.. (note that US is especially bad here.. It uses 30% of world’s resources to produce 25% of world output–whereas Western Europe uses 20% of world’s resources to produce 25% of world output.. And in Japan–the ratio of resource use to output is even better… )
And it is here that I think the time frame issue becomes paramount–In the short term–it is good to help the world industrialize–to obtain higher standards of living–however–the problem becomes whether there will be a resource shock in the future… If we are continually creating systems that are extremely resource inefficient while we also then chew up more and more of the exhaustible resources–we may create a crisis situation at some point… i.e. where the greater and greater demand matches up with lesser and lesser supply.. and prices don’t increase nearly linearly.. but then do so exponentially.. This can cause things like depressions which can clearly destroy all of these hard-earned improvements in the developing countries rather fast…
Thus.. for me I see it as better to ease off on this rapid improvement for the poorer portions of globe now–so that when we put in place systems more geared towards sustainability that these improvement will be more lasting–than to rush people into a bunch of improvements based upon a system that will ultimately fail…
in a nutshell–(in an analogy that has its obvious christian counterpart)–wouldn’t it be better to take the poor villager living on his lake and teach him how to fish in a sustainable way–although this will take a lot of time to do..and may be more expensive for you at first–and some what painful for the villager–than to come in with a huge trawler–show him how to use it–let him catch a ton of fish quickly–from which he makes tons of money–but also which–granting that he can only stay on his lake–also leads to the extinction of the fish and then catastrophe for him later…
random thoughts.. part 1.
Evil commie-pinko-liberal here…
This question has no single answer, obvioiusly, but a multitude of them.. which is pretty much how I see almost all ethical questions–they are overdetermined by the vast number of impacting sets of values that we all hold–and thus, it just depends on which values we prioritize and then apply to the problem….
anyway.. my main point here would be that, personally, I feel that if you take time-frame’s into account–and more importantly–if you emphasize the long-term, that sustainability is the goal to be striven for rather than just continuing on in this system of short-term exploitation of non-renewable energy sources..i.e. it is more moral to sacrifice in the short term for a better long-term outcome than the reverse…
The reasons I think this kind of situation is the case are incoherently elaborated below….
(Note–however–that I’m not one for moving “entirely” off the grid.. I think electricity is awesome–I love hot-water for showers–and I think plastic–with its multitude of uses–is a phenomenal technology…. So.. perhaps this will help situate my comments a bit more..)
anyway… My argument
Yes.. the vast consumption machine that we are living on right now is really incredible.. It does provide a lot of work to people in other countries–and they do become more advanced..
But…. the questions I have…
1. Is this system stable? Personally, I don’t think so… in fact, trying to have everyone on the planet attain the state where they use 5 times as much resources as everyone else is inherently ludicrous.. (note that US is especially bad here.. It uses 30% of world’s resources to produce 25% of world output–whereas Western Europe uses 20% of world’s resources to produce 25% of world output.. And in Japan–the ratio of resource use to output is even better… )
And it is here that I think the time frame issue becomes paramount–In the short term–it is good to help the world industrialize–to obtain higher standards of living–however–the problem becomes whether there will be a resource shock in the future… If we are continually creating systems that are extremely resource inefficient while we also then chew up more and more of the exhaustible resources–we may create a crisis situation at some point… i.e. where the greater and greater demand matches up with lesser and lesser supply.. and prices don’t increase nearly linearly.. but then do so exponentially.. This can cause things like depressions which can clearly destroy all of these hard-earned improvements in the developing countries rather fast…
Thus.. for me I see it as better to ease off on this rapid improvement for the poorer portions of globe now–so that when we put in place systems more geared towards sustainability that these improvement will be more lasting–than to rush people into a bunch of improvements based upon a system that will ultimately fail…
in a nutshell–(in an analogy that has its obvious christian counterpart)–wouldn’t it be better to take the poor villager living on his lake and teach him how to fish in a sustainable way–although this will take a lot of time to do..and may be more expensive for you at first–and some what painful for the villager–than to come in with a huge trawler–show him how to use it–let him catch a ton of fish quickly–from which he makes tons of money–but also which–granting that he can only stay on his lake–also leads to the extinction of the fish and then catastrophe for him later…
random thoughts pt. 2
2. Improving Technology–yes, yes.. one might say that “but our technology will get more efficient and we can avoid the catastrophe’s by just letting advanced technology solve these problems…
My answer from my long studies in the history of technology..
a) Technology does not advance on its own–people have to push it–and right now in this country, if anything, we are pushing technology in the opposite direction from sustainability.. i.e. we think that if we rush towards the cliff in our car.. somehow, in some way–we will figure out how to sprout wings and fly off of it and be okay–even as we spend more effort developing cooler wheels than wings…
b) Time lags.. Changing infrastructures takes decades. Bio-diesel is cool, of course, but it will require trillions upon trillions of dollars and a decade or two to alter are liquid fuels system to change over to such a system.. Now.. if we started doing this now–investing $200-300 billion a year around the globe–then the transition wouldn’t be nearly so painful.. yeah.. fuel prices might only triple between now and then.. but I think we could handle it…
however.. we are not doing this.. corps aren’t spontaneously doing it.. and the gov’t we have is doing just about everything possible to avoid thinking about this (and to keep you from thinking about it) that it can..
okay.. enough ramble.. I have work to do…
My overall sentiment is.. the system we have is very much like running up a credit card debt.. People make the argument that if consumers would stop spending on credit–the whole economy would collapse and people would lose their jobs.. so it is your obligation to keep buying on credit even if every year, your balance gets higher, as do your interest payments.. Importantly–while this might work for a while.. it cannot continue indefinitely… and on a global scale–declaring bankrupcty to shield yourself from your creditors just isn’t going to work…
random thoughts pt. 2
2. Improving Technology–yes, yes.. one might say that “but our technology will get more efficient and we can avoid the catastrophe’s by just letting advanced technology solve these problems…
My answer from my long studies in the history of technology..
a) Technology does not advance on its own–people have to push it–and right now in this country, if anything, we are pushing technology in the opposite direction from sustainability.. i.e. we think that if we rush towards the cliff in our car.. somehow, in some way–we will figure out how to sprout wings and fly off of it and be okay–even as we spend more effort developing cooler wheels than wings…
b) Time lags.. Changing infrastructures takes decades. Bio-diesel is cool, of course, but it will require trillions upon trillions of dollars and a decade or two to alter are liquid fuels system to change over to such a system.. Now.. if we started doing this now–investing $200-300 billion a year around the globe–then the transition wouldn’t be nearly so painful.. yeah.. fuel prices might only triple between now and then.. but I think we could handle it…
however.. we are not doing this.. corps aren’t spontaneously doing it.. and the gov’t we have is doing just about everything possible to avoid thinking about this (and to keep you from thinking about it) that it can..
okay.. enough ramble.. I have work to do…
My overall sentiment is.. the system we have is very much like running up a credit card debt.. People make the argument that if consumers would stop spending on credit–the whole economy would collapse and people would lose their jobs.. so it is your obligation to keep buying on credit even if every year, your balance gets higher, as do your interest payments.. Importantly–while this might work for a while.. it cannot continue indefinitely… and on a global scale–declaring bankrupcty to shield yourself from your creditors just isn’t going to work…
I’m going to take your question in a separate direction, but one I think is important.
You raise the issue of consumption vs. production. Yet these are only easily quantified in physical terms, and even then, are difficult to rate. If I produce corn or cotton (both primary, easily-obtained goods), how much power, water, air, medicine, or gasoline am I then entitled to consume? What about if I need rare chemotherapy treatment?
How do we “value” my production?
Most of the produce / consume arguments I have seen usually start off by attacking the US–and while I’m not going to defend it here, I *am* going to point something out:
Typically (I am not stating this is universally true), the amount of “production” is measured in GDP. Thus, the US is said to “consume”, some 27% of the world’s resources, as measured in GDP.
Yet what goes unsaid in that statement is that the United States PRODUCES more than it consumes. Thus, although the statement The United States consumes 27% of the world’s resources. is true as measured, the statement The United States produces 35% (or whatever number) of the world’s resources. is equally true when the same GDP criterion is used.
The production / consumption issue, IMO, is perverted and diluted to the point of uselessness.
There are other points you raise, however, which I think are perfectly valid. Americans *do* need to reduce the staggering amount of waste we produce, and the amount of energy / oil we consume. Sometimes what boggles my mind the most isn’t that we waste things, but that we could be markedly more efficient with relatively small costs.
where…
did you get these numbers…
I only ask because in terms of energy resources.. I know that the US uses a lot more energy resources per unit of output then either Europe or Japan.. (it uses 3 times as much as the Japanese and twice as much as the Europeans…) So I wanted to know what your source was so that I can compare them and get to the bottom of this seeming paradox….
Also.. I think GDP is a kind of wacky thing to use in terms of comparing resources… because.. if you think about it.. GDP is measured in currency–which fluctuates… and sometimes dramatically… thinking just about the Dollar and Euro.. within the last couple of years, the dollar has lost something on the order of 15% (or more) of its value to the Euro… Shouldn’t that change the GDP numbers for the world then??? i.e. If we measure everyone’s output in terms of dollars… then we ould have to either jack up the European contribution by 15% or reduce the US percentage by 15%… even though the total amount of goods and services (rated in hours) might not have changed at all…
weirdness…
where…
did you get these numbers…
I only ask because in terms of energy resources.. I know that the US uses a lot more energy resources per unit of output then either Europe or Japan.. (it uses 3 times as much as the Japanese and twice as much as the Europeans…) So I wanted to know what your source was so that I can compare them and get to the bottom of this seeming paradox….
Also.. I think GDP is a kind of wacky thing to use in terms of comparing resources… because.. if you think about it.. GDP is measured in currency–which fluctuates… and sometimes dramatically… thinking just about the Dollar and Euro.. within the last couple of years, the dollar has lost something on the order of 15% (or more) of its value to the Euro… Shouldn’t that change the GDP numbers for the world then??? i.e. If we measure everyone’s output in terms of dollars… then we ould have to either jack up the European contribution by 15% or reduce the US percentage by 15%… even though the total amount of goods and services (rated in hours) might not have changed at all…
weirdness…
oh.. one last thing…
something I forgot to add below.. and should be more specific about above is that the numbers that I saw (from a couple of years ago–like the year 2000 or so..) stated that the US used 30% of the world’s energy resources (coal, oil, gas, nukes) to produce 25% of the world’s output.. whereas Europe used only 20% of the world’s energy resources to produce about the same amount…
And this is the real paradox that I want to figure out.. I can try to track down my source and if you have yours.. then we can try to find out who’s lying or whether they are just measuring different things..
oh.. one last thing…
something I forgot to add below.. and should be more specific about above is that the numbers that I saw (from a couple of years ago–like the year 2000 or so..) stated that the US used 30% of the world’s energy resources (coal, oil, gas, nukes) to produce 25% of the world’s output.. whereas Europe used only 20% of the world’s energy resources to produce about the same amount…
And this is the real paradox that I want to figure out.. I can try to track down my source and if you have yours.. then we can try to find out who’s lying or whether they are just measuring different things..
I’m going to take your question in a separate direction, but one I think is important.
You raise the issue of consumption vs. production. Yet these are only easily quantified in physical terms, and even then, are difficult to rate. If I produce corn or cotton (both primary, easily-obtained goods), how much power, water, air, medicine, or gasoline am I then entitled to consume? What about if I need rare chemotherapy treatment?
How do we “value” my production?
Most of the produce / consume arguments I have seen usually start off by attacking the US–and while I’m not going to defend it here, I *am* going to point something out:
Typically (I am not stating this is universally true), the amount of “production” is measured in GDP. Thus, the US is said to “consume”, some 27% of the world’s resources, as measured in GDP.
Yet what goes unsaid in that statement is that the United States PRODUCES more than it consumes. Thus, although the statement The United States consumes 27% of the world’s resources. is true as measured, the statement The United States produces 35% (or whatever number) of the world’s resources. is equally true when the same GDP criterion is used.
The production / consumption issue, IMO, is perverted and diluted to the point of uselessness.
There are other points you raise, however, which I think are perfectly valid. Americans *do* need to reduce the staggering amount of waste we produce, and the amount of energy / oil we consume. Sometimes what boggles my mind the most isn’t that we waste things, but that we could be markedly more efficient with relatively small costs.
I don’t think I know enough about the subject to really say anything meaningful beyond a few opinions based on cursory observations, but here goes:
1) I think we, as a whole, have been living in an industrialized state for so long that the majority of us have no idea of what a lifestyle of no waste and no dependence on exaustable resources even looks like (apart from National Geographic documentaries on primitive societies that have had no contact with the outside world until now). Furthermore, if anyone were to try to get us to live that way, there would be reprecussions ranging from litigation to protests to violence to global war. Even modern attempts to create self-sustainable lifestyles with a minimal drain on the environment usually use tools and equipment that require someone somewhere to be industrialized.
2) The disparity of lifestyles and cultural values among the world’s communities is so vast that coming to a universal understanding of of the need for conservation and the actions that facilitating that need would entail would be impossible.
For what it’s worth.
I don’t think I know enough about the subject to really say anything meaningful beyond a few opinions based on cursory observations, but here goes:
1) I think we, as a whole, have been living in an industrialized state for so long that the majority of us have no idea of what a lifestyle of no waste and no dependence on exaustable resources even looks like (apart from National Geographic documentaries on primitive societies that have had no contact with the outside world until now). Furthermore, if anyone were to try to get us to live that way, there would be reprecussions ranging from litigation to protests to violence to global war. Even modern attempts to create self-sustainable lifestyles with a minimal drain on the environment usually use tools and equipment that require someone somewhere to be industrialized.
2) The disparity of lifestyles and cultural values among the world’s communities is so vast that coming to a universal understanding of of the need for conservation and the actions that facilitating that need would entail would be impossible.
For what it’s worth.
Monologic:
Amish
Monologic:
Amish