|
Flaccid, welcome to the thread! Glad to have you here.
Flaccid says, "And I can't comment on the vegan/vegetarian thing. I live in Alberta, where we have the best beef in the world. Giving up meat in this region would be like a German giving up Beer. So obviously I haven't really done much research into the subject besides noting the poor health of the vegetarians I've dated over the years ;-)."
Be careful about judging vegetarianism negatively because you knew/know unhealthy vegetarians. To be sure, there are unhealthy vegetarians and vegans - I've been one, though I am healthy now. But this is no strike against vegetarianism. Indeed, there are millions of unhealthy meat eaters. A very meat-heavy diet is linked to many problems, including various cancers.
To be totally fair, I believe the most healthy diet for most humans would naturally include some meat (much less than most people of wealthy countries eat, however) and many vegetables and fruits, some grains, and lots of nuts and seeds.
Still, the argument remains, in terms of the wellbeing of the environment, and the use of resources, meat is very expensive. The less you can eat, the better.
I assure you, with some careful thought and research, a vegetarian or vegan diet can be VERY healthy. But you don't have to be vegetarian to eat much less meat than you presently do. Every step you take helps.
Flaccid says "I don't buy the 'work-less' mentality. Not all work is 'soulless, mind numbing corporate labor', as you put it. Should doctors work less?"
You make a very good point. I agree with what you are saying here; we should distinguish between more and less important jobs, more and less fulfilling work, and so on. We should not throw the baby out with the bath water. Still, many jobs do contribute to the degradation of the environment as well as the murder or exploitation of people and other life. And many jobs are soulless and mind-numbing. Keep in mind that many of the worst jobs are not done in wealthy countries like Canada and America, yet Americans and Canadians benefit from this labor.
Also, modern labor tends to encourage excessive consumption, in large part because there is very little flexibility in the amount of work we can do. Some of the more realistic economists (Juliet Schor comes to mind) note that many workers would likely choose to work less if they could. Often people are offered a choice between full time (40+ hours per week) work, with benefits and high pay, or part time work with few or no benefits, and low pay. Clearly, given this situation, people will choose to work more, and engage in a high consumption lifestyle to compensate for the extra work that they otherwise might not have chosen.
Blah blah blah - what I am trying to say here is that we ought to merely be conscious of our work and consumption habits. Do we really WANT to work so much? If you have a great job, by all means do so (but please be responsible in your consumption habits). If not, one way to get around working so much is to embrace frugality and simple living.
I also wish people would consider the large scale implications of their jobs. Does your job help people? Does it help the environment? Or does it hurt people and the environment? I merely encourage people to be responsible.
|
Physician
United States4146 Posts
(btw it's think globally – act locally).
"So, Physician, I ask again, what specifically about my post do you not agree with, except for the individualistic approach? "
I don't agree with buy less and definitively don't agree with working less or making no babies. The other points I don't completely disagree, and some I agree wholeheartedly with - but still I have found better ways to offset my own negative ecological footprint. It's not that I am against some of the specific advice so much - but more than I am against the general idea suggested - which is to put our main focus on reducing our own personal negative ecological footprints without considering or suggesting the positive things we can do too - that might be far more important and valuable to the environment.
My ecological footprint is by no means humble but by investing wisely my time and money, fruits of my labor, I have done far more for the environment than I could though 100 lifetimes of pushing less.
"So, what would you do differently?"
A few examples -
+ Show Spoiler +i) I gave a small talk in a high school to different classes where I encouraged and convinced the students that they should take it upon themselves to organize recycling for the town we live in. I told them who they had to talk to, when, how to set up the organization, and how to fund it. All I did was share information and help organize it. Today our town has a decent recycling option that it never had - all because of a little information, someone willing to organize it, and to be honest very little of my time in this particular case. Do I recycle? Sometimes, but not always. Do I think it is a good thing? You bet. You can also bet that convincing my town to recycle offset 100 lifetimes of recycling myself.
ii) I have invested some of my money in companies that are focused on efficient renewable energy. I work as much as I can, not less, to earn more revenue, to be able to invest more money wisely, which in the end gives me more clout to do the "right" things. While you suggest our focus should be on working less and buying less - I rather focus on working more and investing money in the right places - not only to selfishly increase my own revenue but also to push more from the other side of the ox, away from the cliff. Who knows how much ecological good the money invested into new solar energy technology will end up giving us collectively? I am willing to bet that what I invest today, will multiply itself many folds in the future - far more than I could ever reduce my own personal negative ecological footprint.
iii) I bought myself some land in Southern Argentina and planted a shit load of trees, I don't want to say how many acres lest I be accused of bragging but suffice to say that the benefit those trees will do in my life time, will in comparison at least, make my own personal negative ecological footprint rather insignificant. Buying more ain't always bad. I don't plan on ever cutting any down any until I retire, and when I do - I will be cutting and replanting. I am also 100% sure wood will have a great price when I am ready to hang the gloves. I see it as part of my retirement fund if I am lucky enough to live long.
iv) Identifying waste cycles that can save organizations resources, time and money is a great way to multiplying your own worth on the positive ecological footprint scale. For example, in my own trade, I noticed once that a large government agency was sending patients 3 month supply of medication on their new prescriptions. Since there is a law against reusing medications once dispensed and there will always be at least a 5% rate of adverse effects or allergies, 3 months supply on a first time medication a patient was trying was crazy since that meant that many of those bottles of medications went to waste. If the government agency is doing this on say a million users, 50,000 of 3 month supply bottles of medications goes straight to the garbage, and every time they are prescribed a new medication, over and over again. All it took was one letter to the right people pointing out the problem, the potential money and resource saving and suggesting a solution - a first time 10 day supply of medications before sending the three month supply on any new medication prescribed to a patient. Who knows how many lifetimes I made up in negative ecological footprints with this example alone.
v) A final example - you made mention of buying local foods which I agree with in a lot of cases to be a good idea - but no matter how much local food you buy it won't make much of dent even in your own ecological footprint. I rather spend my time eating sushi brought from far away while at the same time convincing several schools to buying all their vegetables from local Mennonite farmers and all their milk from a local dairy. In fact, I did - I threw the idea out there with a few phone calls - people's self interest did the rest. What do you think is more important: 8 schools consuming local vegetables (and milk), or one person consuming local vegetables?
There is a million little things one can do to push that ox away from the cliff, instead of pushing less with the rest towards the cliff - and yes, even if you are pushing the ox towards the cliff too in other ways. Point is if you do things that push the ox away from the cliff, and they are more significant than your negative ecological footprint - your actively doing the "right thing". I really could go on and on with my own personal experiences but I am sure you get the idea.
My whole point is that pushing less, consuming less, doing less is just not enough man - thus my comment of are you a mouse or man? You have to go beyond that to make a difference - and of note, all my examples are things an individual did and none involved were large scale political action or activism.
"I know of NO way that increased consumption, population growth, and economic growth can continue in a world of FINITE RESOURCES. Any solution to the environmental crisis must address population growth, consumption, and economic growth. There is no other way."
Well, one can work on making the resources we have do more. One can make many soda cans today with the aluminum content of just one can made in the seventies - same goes for cars, weight for weight, a modern car uses much less resources than a car say from the fifties. You could also even add our use of land resources - we are able to produce today more crops than ever - on less land that before etc... You can also recycle more and more efficiently. The efficiency of resource use and its recycling will by no means halt, but continue evolving. And finally why settle for finite resources? Why not find new ones? Bacteria weren't considered much of a raw material resource one hundred years ago, today they are. And why settle for finite resources within our current grasp?
You forget the stars and our dreams.
The word "finite" with time, as our technology advances, may be pushed more to the "infinite". Who knows if we end up mastering fusion and energy becomes near free and ecologically friendly? With unlimited energy all is feasible. Who knows if we don't end up mining the moon, nearby asteroids and terraforming mars?
There is a part of me that really doesn't care a hoots ass how much we eat up our current resources, how much we pollute and how much we ruin our planet - because in the end, knowing human nature, the only way we will be motivated to leave our heavenly bubble prison, planet earth, is when it becomes unconformable enough to want to leave it, i.e. it becomes a bubble hell, and the "out there" starts becoming ever more attractive. We have all our eggs in one basket and that is a certain path toward our own extinction, albeit not as fast as not making more babies - so we really should be thinking about spreading our vile seed out there, i.e. making more babies and propagating beyond.
It does sadden me that it will at the cost of much of our genosphere. I fear we will not be wise enough, fast enough, to prevent that - and that will be our greatest loss, the loss of most of our own genosphere, assuming too that the loss will mean something to us because we were fortunate enough to survive ourselves. Still, odds are against us, even without our wrong doings if we resign ourselves to stay in one place. Anyway I am drifting off. Though my feet are both in the ground, my eyes are always wandering..
|
Physician, I truly do applaud you on your efforts and accomplishments.
I do not see anything in your post that shows where anything I have advocated here is incorrect - you point out things you do not like, but that does not make them wrong (you make some good points on work, but it must be acknowledged that much work does great harm globally, and so to blindly embrace a high-work lifestyle can be problematic, while some work can be very useful). Indeed, I think that the sort of approach you have taken perfectly compliments the things I advocate, and vice versa. This kind of dichotomy you seem to be pointing out is completley artificial. There is no conflict between our approaches. For the purposes of this thread, I have focused on individual action, for reasons already mentioned, but that does not mean large scale change shouldn't be an area of focus, and I'm glad you have brought up specific actions to take.
As I've said, I am 100% for systemic, large scale change, which is what you seem to focus on.
Anyway, to anyone reading this thread, I encourage you to read Physician's last post for specific ideas on how to help your community. I also encourage you to not be so quick to disregard the importance of individual responsibility. Both compliment each other and both are necessary.
I think the difference between Physician and I (potentially) is that I don't see any reason to stop at systemic change. I believe in responsibility on a global level, a societal level, and an individual level. To neglect any of these is very problematic.
|
Physician says: "Well, one can work on making the resources we have do more. One can make many soda cans today with the aluminum content of just one can made in the seventies - same goes for cars, weight for weight, a modern car uses much less resources than a car say from the fifties. You could also even add our use of land resources - we are able to produce today more crops than ever - on less land that before etc... You can also recycle more and more efficiently. The efficiency of resource use and its recycling will by no means halt, but continue evolving. And finally why settle for finite resources? Why not find new ones? Bacteria weren't considered much of a raw material resource one hundred years ago, today they are. And why settle for finite resources within our current grasp?
You forget the stars and our dreams."
--------------------------------------------
It is true that as technology develops, gains in efficiency are often realized. However, the gains in efficiency are usually nullified by the expansion of consumption and waste that result from the gain in efficiency. As an example, it is true that cars pollute less today and use less resources in their manufacture, but simultaneously, far more people drive today than in 1970, and even more people very much would like to drive (the Chinese are beginning to drive in greater and greater numbers). More often than not, more efficient use of resources leads to an even greater amount of consumption and waste. In the same way, adding lanes to existing streets will, in short time, make traffic even worse than it already was. This is a paradoxical effect, but it must be noted and understood if we are to address environmental problems.
What I said remains: There is no way the Earth can sustain growth in consumption, population, and resource use. It matters not how slow the growth is, a system of limited resources cannot sustain infinite growth. This is true whether we are considering Earth, the solar system, the galaxy, or the known universe.
You say I forget the stars and our dreams... What does this even mean? First of all, you say "our dreams." Who's dreams? Don't speak for me. If your dream is infinite expansion, growth, and consumption, then I don't share your dream. As to forgetting the stars.... I hardly have forgotten the stars, I just do not expect that colonization of space is a realistic solution to Earth's problems. The problems here on Earth are very large scale, they are going to get worse much faster than we can feasibly set up a colony anywhere. And last of all, if we can't take care of one tiny planet, how are we going to take care of a solar system or a galaxy?
|
Physician
United States4146 Posts
argg ur way too reasonable and polite for these forums! I wish there were more like you.
There is nothing wrong with most of the suggestions you posted, except for the phrasing of working less and having no babies, there definitively can be more work without increasing one's ecological negative footprint, and our species can not survive without reproduction. I honestly believe and assume what you really meant - have less babies in general i.e. no more than 2 children per couple and doing less of the work that has negative ecological impact.
I sneakily understood (and agreed with) your points even though I argued them anyway - because I wanted to make the point that even more important than doing less of the negative, is doing more of the positive, thus my silly ox and cliff, mouse and man, metaphors.
Doing less ultimately will not increase our survival chances as a species - because of i) whether some like it or not we have to put our eggs on more than one basket - we are vulnerable as a species staying put in one place (planet) and ii) our very nature - we will reproduce, we will consume and we will grow, that is what life does, even intelligent life.
So ultimately while doing less might give buy us time while we subsist - only doing more of the positive on the other hand might will be our saving grace. It's merely an attitude issue I wanted to point out - yes of course "there is no conflict between our approaches", or at least very little, they both work on keeping that ox away from the cliff.
We can't also ignore that fact that likelihood that your suggestions will be adopted by others any time soon on a scale that makes any difference is zero - pretty much the same likelihood we will be terraforming Mars or colonizing space any time soon. But both, when the pressure of lack of resources increases, will happen to certain degrees.
As it is to day 1/7th of all our collective work ends up in military expenditure and who know how much more of our work is outright waste from any perspective. It is unfortunate that we humans will only get our priorities right only when forced too. I am pretty sure that when the equator temperatures start reaching 140 F in mid day and we end up freezing our planet trying to correct it, we will be more willing to accept changes our attitude and priorities.
In the meanwhile I will do my little part and enjoy good life while it lasts. Anyway your main point is advocating that we must take responsibility of our negative ecological footprint. I could not agree with you more on this core issue.
|
Thanks Physician, one can't be accused of being too reasonable and polite often enough. All of your posts here are appreciated, especially your second one, in which you outline several methods you have used to help the environment.
I understand your primary critique and appreciate it - it is valid. You are pointing out the difference between positive and negative thinking. Rather than thinking about what we don't want, you are saying we should think about what we do want. There is that famous problem in which you are instructed to NOT think of the blue elephant. What do you think of? The blue elephant, of course. The way to not think about the blue elephant is to actively think about something else - a red fairy, or something. This is positive thinking.
Still, we need to know what we are doing wrong so that we can correct it, so this thread can serve that purpose to an extent.
I do intend to write more about the "positive" approaches to environmental and social problems. Flaccid wrote a very nice PM to me in which he spoke of emphasizing DOING things over OWNING things. This is a positive change that needs to happen in society. Rather than placing so much emphasis on possessions, people should place more emphasis on things like community, relationships, and meaningful work (work can indeed be very important! I admit it!), which are arguably far more fulfilling than consumerism anyway.
At any rate, you are right Physician, however we approach this issue, there are great difficulties. Still, change is not impossible, and the sooner we realize that (I think you and I do realize it), the sooner positive change can begin. One reason I advocate personal change is that it is relatively easy to make changes to yourself. IT is easy to eat less meat this week than last. It is easy to bicycle a little more often. When you begin making changes such as this, it can lead to a positive attitude; a realization that change is in fact possible. If I can do it, anyone can.
Thanks again.
|
Physician
United States4146 Posts
|
I am interested in peak oil, Physician. However, I am also on dialup, which makes movies very problematic for the Inklar~
Peak oil means some serious problems for modern societies, and some researchers believe that world wide oil production peaked a year ago (maybe a little irresponsible to make that claim so soon, but...)
Whatever the case, peak oil is sure to have happened anywhere from, say, 2005 to 2015.
All the more reason to get used to riding a bicycle.
As to bicycles and their "impracticality," let me say this: I know a 59 year old man who relies purely on the bicycle for transportation. Every weekend, for fun and exercise, he rides from his home all the way to the Sandia Mountains (here in New Mexico), climbs the entire mountain to the peak (on foot), then climbs back down, then rides back home. Round trip: 50 miles! (takes about 7 hours, I think) He does this even in the winter. Oh, and his bicycle is a *single speed* beach cruiser!
Personally, I bicycle for most of my transportation, and routinely ride 10 or 15 miles, even in below freezing weather (I went for a nice long ride up to the mountains on Christmas, in fact.) You have to work up to greater distances, but it becomes easy, and very gratifying. I feel better than ever, now that I am in shape and used to regular riding.
Most people who are afraid to bicycle simply do not know their own strength. Humans are tough animals.
50 percent of all car trips are under 5 miles, and cars pollute the most in the first few miles they are driven. *5 miles* This is a seriously easy and fun distance for a bicycle trip.
Might as well get used to biking. Peak oil is upon us.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
