kyounge1956
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
- Joined
- Sep 11, 2008
- Messages
- 2,171
Apologies for my part in the thread-jacking, but it's a topic I do wonder about sometimes, so here goes.
What I meant by "live within our means" is "no consumption in excess of income", but seen in terms of energy and natural resources rather than in the monetary sense in which that phrase might be used in a discussion of personal finance. In our use of energy and resources, I think (especially in the developed countries) we humans are like a household that spends more than they have coming in, puts the difference on credit cards, and carries a balance. We are running up debts, and there is no bankruptcy court that can expunge them. Changing over to a sustainable economy would be like that household converting their finances to an all cash, pay as you go, basis.
Looked at in terms of energy and natural resources, the dinosaurs were, AFAIK, living in a "sustainable economic system", and did nothing that could not have continued indefinitely. They didn't go extinct because of overgrazing or over-hunting that they themselves caused. If not for an unforeseeable catastrophe, maybe they would still be here today. I don't think the same can be said of human beings. We do use up non-renewable resources, and use some renewable ones faster than they are able to replenish themselves.
What would be different if we stopped doing this? Are there aspects our lives that would differ little if at all? (Would we still be sitting about on a late-November evening, full of turkey and gratitude?) What changes would H. sapiens, as a species, need to make to convert our use of energy and natural resources to a "pay as you go" basis?
...It seems obvious to me that consumption cannot increase indefinitely. Eventually, we humans will have to find some other basis for our economy than "produce more, borrow more, spend more, consume more". I wonder what that "other basis" is, and what a sustainable economic system—one that can continue indefinitely—would look like...What if humanity as a whole decided to live within our means?
In the context of "society" what does "live within our means" mean? Is it sort of like the notion that if dinosaurs had consumed vegatation and each other more daintily and in smaller quantities, they'd be here today?
What I meant by "live within our means" is "no consumption in excess of income", but seen in terms of energy and natural resources rather than in the monetary sense in which that phrase might be used in a discussion of personal finance. In our use of energy and resources, I think (especially in the developed countries) we humans are like a household that spends more than they have coming in, puts the difference on credit cards, and carries a balance. We are running up debts, and there is no bankruptcy court that can expunge them. Changing over to a sustainable economy would be like that household converting their finances to an all cash, pay as you go, basis.
Looked at in terms of energy and natural resources, the dinosaurs were, AFAIK, living in a "sustainable economic system", and did nothing that could not have continued indefinitely. They didn't go extinct because of overgrazing or over-hunting that they themselves caused. If not for an unforeseeable catastrophe, maybe they would still be here today. I don't think the same can be said of human beings. We do use up non-renewable resources, and use some renewable ones faster than they are able to replenish themselves.
What would be different if we stopped doing this? Are there aspects our lives that would differ little if at all? (Would we still be sitting about on a late-November evening, full of turkey and gratitude?) What changes would H. sapiens, as a species, need to make to convert our use of energy and natural resources to a "pay as you go" basis?