David Suzuki: An elder's vision for our sustainable future

It does answer your question by clarifying that it's neither, and you misinterpreted.

Originally posted by swanne

Originally posted by seagull
reply to post by TFCJay

 

How is he wrong? Our current level of growth is unsustainable. How does making money make this any less true?

We have enough water and desalination technology to fill all need for water, including the third world, which sorely needs it. Yet it seems some key sectors prevented such technology from being implemented. Why? Is it because of economical strategy? Economical key points? I don't know... All we know is that it's been decades we have the technology to solve mankind's problem but some sectors prevent these measures from being implemented. I give an example: We have the tech to build towers which could house ALL of mankind (including those on the streets and the third world), every single man, woman and child on the planet for the next hundred years, and at the same time reduce the area that mankind occupies on dry land to no more than 2%. We all saw that fact about the 800-meter ball. Overopulation was invented by Malthus in the 1700's.

Yet, people in the big media, those who are supposedly our leaders for a sustainable future, keep saying that it would be better to actually SPREAD mankind all over the place, which would mean cutting down even more forests and building even more roads. They call for a de-urbanization although the real solution is actually the exact opposite: Cover less space so that vacant space can be used for food production.

edit on 20-5-2013 by swanne because: (no reason given)

Yes it is economical strategy, called artificial scarcity.

Artificial Scarcity

There is no way to limit the growth without using dirty tactics that will leave social scars and can backfire.
Best thing is to educate people to consume less ,guard nature and invest in sensible green tech and recycling.

Simultaneously do what Greek states did when they faced with similar problems - colonies in other places.
Invest in space traveling - colony on Mars can be established in less then a century if focus will be shifted to this.
After all, it is just a matter of time to be able to travel beyond Solar (by mistake i typed Dolar - how fitting!) system
and finding new sources of energy. 2 big IFs - if we want it to happen and if we won't wipe ourself out prior to it.

Originally posted by seagull
reply to post by swanne

 

Indeed we do, or if not, we're certainly close. But, eventually, given unlimited growth, we're going to run out of stuff.

Now it's not going to happen anytime soon, we're hundreds, if not more, of years away from having to worry about it. But it's not too early to start taking it into consideration.

Well actually as David Suzuki stated in the video, he said scientists he talked with told him that humanity is beyond the deadline.We're running out of key fossil fuels within 50 years, and those may be optimistic prognostics at best.

Originally posted by The_Oracle
It does answer your question by clarifying that it's neither, and you misinterpreted.

How does it answer either question?

Originally posted by ZeroKnowledge
There is no way to limit the growth without using dirty tactics that will leave social scars and can backfire.
Best thing is to educate people to consume less ,guard nature and invest in sensible green tech and recycling.

Simultaneously do what Greek states did when they faced with similar problems - colonies in other places.
Invest in space traveling - colony on Mars can be established in less then a century if focus will be shifted to this.
After all, it is just a matter of time to be able to travel beyond Solar (by mistake i typed Dolar - how fitting!) system
and finding new sources of energy. 2 big IFs - if we want it to happen and if we won't wipe ourself out prior to it.

Yeah, as David Suzuki stated if people would only be aware of the problems and invested in science and scientists instead of politicians then solutions could be made.

And he stated why limit ourselves to capitalism or markets if infinite growth is unsustainable? Humans came up with these concepts and they should be able to come up with something better, and in fact they have.

I'm a personal supported of a Resource Based Economy.

The Zeitgeist Movement Defined: Realizing a New Train of Thought

Originally posted by khimbar

Originally posted by The_Oracle
It does answer your question by clarifying that it's neither, and you misinterpreted.

How does it answer either question?

Did you read my comment or just quoted it without looking?

reply to post by The_Oracle


These were the questions.

'I thought the forum was for everyone?

Now its only for those who agree with you?'

How does

Originally posted by The_Oracle


There is a difference between discerning and agreeing, look it up if you didn't know.

answer them?

Originally posted by The_Oracle

Originally posted by ZeroKnowledge
There is no way to limit the growth without using dirty tactics that will leave social scars and can backfire.
Best thing is to educate people to consume less ,guard nature and invest in sensible green tech and recycling.

Simultaneously do what Greek states did when they faced with similar problems - colonies in other places.
Invest in space traveling - colony on Mars can be established in less then a century if focus will be shifted to this.
After all, it is just a matter of time to be able to travel beyond Solar (by mistake i typed Dolar - how fitting!) system
and finding new sources of energy. 2 big IFs - if we want it to happen and if we won't wipe ourself out prior to it.

Yeah, as David Suzuki stated if people would only be aware of the problems and invested in science and scientists instead of politicians then solutions could be made.

And he stated why limit ourselves to capitalism or markets if infinite growth is unsustainable? Humans came up with these concepts and they should be able to come up with something better, and in fact they have.

I'm a personal supported of a Resource Based Economy.

The Zeitgeist Movement Defined: Realizing a New Train of Thought

The thing is, you cant stop natural growth with education. Especially as the medicine will get better and better. Look at how they influenced growth in China and India - laws and medication. Would you like to live in society that tells you how many kids (if any) you can have or that makes you use medications? I cant see any of this being implicated without a conflict in West ,Russia or Middle East.
In my opinion growth has to be accepted as a natural condition of Humanity, and instead of being fought against it needs to be dealt with in positive manner. There is an infinite universe out there.

reply to post by seagull



Nice to see mods use each other for back-up. Very noble.

Mr Suzuki has 5 children. Practice what he preaches? Does he tell his own children to not have children?

Originally posted by khimbar
reply to post by The_Oracle

 

These were the questions.

'I thought the forum was for everyone?

Now its only for those who agree with you?'

How does

Originally posted by The_Oracle


There is a difference between discerning and agreeing, look it up if you didn't know.

answer them?

You assumed with both questions that I meant those that do not agree with me are not for this forum right? Well my comment clearly disproves that by stating I wrote discerning and not agreeing and also proving my point that you misinterpreted.

Merriam - Webster Dictionary: Discern

Originally posted by ZeroKnowledge
The thing is, you cant stop natural growth with education. Especially as the medicine will get better and better. Look at how they influenced growth in China and India - laws and medication. Would you like to leave in society that tells you how many kids (if any) you can have or that makes you use medications? I cant see any of this being implicated without a conflict in West ,Russia or Middle East.
In my opinion growth has to be accepted as a natural condition of Humanity, and instead of being fought against it needs to be dealt with in positive manner. There is an infinite universe out there.

It's not about stopping it, but about balancing it, and that IS possible through education, but not the kind we are getting currently in the majority of schools, high schools and collages, but the kind of education that caters to the scientific,biological and psychological needs of all human beings.

And the balancing act through education also requires a balanced system which provides fundamental needs to every human economically, and not the distorted materialistic infinite consumption that is brainwashing humanity today.This can and is also determined scientifically.

If these actions do not manage to balance the world out, then we were doomed as a species from the beginning as we would never be able to progress to the next phase of our so called "civilization" because being aware of all these aspects is crucial and would be absolutely required for our species to survive and advance.

reply to post by TFCJay


Backing up? Trust me when I say, 'trep doesn't need little ol' me to back him up.

'cause we agree on this issue, we're backing each other? Really?

the resources on this little old planet are not infinite, it's time and past to begin to manage them better than we have in the past. It doesn't take a great deal of thought to figure that out...does it?

No, the resources aren't going to run out tomorrow, or even next year, but there is a limit to them.