The Earth is Full - A Gibbsian Orgasm Piece

[IPorange]

I understand that and threw it out as an example of how we might become more efficient - nothing we do is resource neutral. At best we can be better at using resources but the notion that somehow living simpler reduces resource use is off too. If we all start growing our own food I would be we use more not less of those diminishing resources.

That depends on what you eat now, what you grow, and where you live.

If you looked at the footprint map they have out somewhere, you'd see that the Middle East is as dark red as hell due to the completely unsustainable population size and lifestyles of the people living there. Yes, no matter what they do, they will not be sustainable in those numbers.

In the Eastern US, we could be more efficient by growing some of our own food, cutting back on meat, etc.

 

[volinbham]

That depends on what you eat now, what you grow, and where you live.

If you looked at the footprint map they have out somewhere, you'd see that the Middle East is as dark red as hell due to the completely unsustainable population size and lifestyles of the people living there. Yes, no matter what they do, they will not be sustainable in those numbers.

In the Eastern US, we could be more efficient by growing some of our own food, cutting back on meat, etc.

Starting with the Eastern US. What is the organizing mechanism that leads to the right amount of growing "some of our own food" and consuming less meat? If we all start gardens; water, pesticide and fertilizer use go up across a broad diversity of landscapes and water systems. We may cut back some transportation costs but overall do we get a net reduction in resource use? Are a million individual farms more resource efficient than a couple hundred large farms?

Throughout man's history, populations have existed where local resources (e.g. Middle East) were insufficient for sustainability. As a result, we have trade - since the dawn of mankind. Most economists would argue that resources are used more efficiently when trade occurs so different areas can be resource efficiency maximized.

So back to the OP - population growth and lifestyle definitely put a strain on resources and I can see that we are having a net reduction on the earth's resources.

To jump then to some solution involving pursuing more happy and simple lifestyles (as stated in the OP) is a completely unsupported conclusion to the problem of resource depletion. The further implication that somehow capitalism is the problem (as implied in the OP and questioned by another poster) is also completely unsupported. Growth from a capitalistic standpoint does not require population growth nor does it necessarily imply more resource consumption than non-capitalistic mechanisms. My argument is that a capitalistic system is probably the best system to incentivize moves towards more efficient uses of resources. At a minimum, it doesn't imply worse use of resources than competing systems.

 

[utgibbs]

Did you happen to see the 60 Minutes (repeat) about Craig Venter? He is using economic incentive to design and genetically engineer new organisms - many of the energy companies are large investors.

In short, you cannot separate economic from the equation. The history of man is economic and there is no escape from adding economic consideration into analysis. Or, any analysis on this scale without adding economic variables is incomplete and has serious problems with external validity.

But that vast majority of human economics has not been bourgeois or Capitalist economics.

The notion of the designing new organisms as crew members on "Spaceship Earth" is not only a perfect example of the diminishing returns on technology, I feel it is a perfect example of our spiritual impoverishment.

Capitalist economics do not work. We our witness to its end in our own historic times. We are dealing with a situation that even bourgeois economists have called "the greatest and most far reaching market failure in history."

Economics might be indespensible in a discussion of human society, but bourgeois economics is like the single filing of a fingernail in the history of homo sapiens. It may have once been liberal and progressive, but is breaking down regularly, has not delivered the goods for awhile, and is endangering the whole biosphere.

IF, as you suggest, capitalism might provide the best incentives for maximum efficiency, it will only come with a tremendous amount of regulation, planning, and resource redistribution.

Which is to say, something very different from "capitalism" altogether. :hi:

 

[utgibbs]

Starting with the Eastern US. What is the organizing mechanism that leads to the right amount of growing "some of our own food" and consuming less meat? If we all start gardens; water, pesticide and fertilizer use go up across a broad diversity of landscapes and water systems. We may cut back some transportation costs but overall do we get a net reduction in resource use? Are a million individual farms more resource efficient than a couple hundred large farms?

Cuba provides a real world example against everything you have suggested here. And it increased variety. They did indeed restore their caloric intake and were very much more efficient than previously. I have some excellent fertilizer use vs agricultural output data. They do import some food again now (from the US if you can believe), but in the dark days of the early 1990s, they had no Russian or Venezuelan oil, and they went hungry for two years. But they bootstrapped and got back to 2700 calories per day using a lot fewer resources. It also happened to increase the variety of agricultural goods too. Cuba was still sugar king at the time.

 

[MG1968]

I have some excellent fertilizer

in military parlance, that's a euphemism for "Bravo Sierra" of which there is no doubt you possess a lot.