« prev   random   next »

2
0

Mankind can either lead a 'good life'... or a sustainable one, but NOT both.......

By Feux Follets following x   2018 May 14, 2:18pm 317 views   23 comments   watch   sfw   quote     share    


It is impossible for humans to live both a 'good' life and an environmentally friendly one, researchers have found.

Scientists compared the ability of countries to meet 11 social goals for their citizens against how they measured up to seven environmental targets.

The study found that no country has managed to achieve the right balance between happiness and sustainability, and that the better a country does on one side of the scale, the worse it tends to do on the other.

Researchers compared the ability of countries to provide a good life for their citizens against their impact on the environment :

They found no country on earth has yet achieved a balance between the two

Most balanced country is Vietnam, though it still emits too much carbon dioxide

Least balanced is Swaziland which has poor quality of life and is unsustainable

The study was carried out by the Sustainability Research Institute at University of Leeds in England and the Mercator Research Institute on Global Commons and Climate Change in Berlin.

Co-author Dr Julia Steinberger, from the School of Earth and Environment at Leeds, said: 'Radical changes are needed if all people are to live well within the limits of the planet.

'These include moving beyond the pursuit of economic growth in wealthy nations, shifting rapidly from fossil fuels to renewable energy, and significantly reducing inequality.

'Our physical infrastructure and the way we distribute resources are both part of what we call provisioning systems.

'If all people are to lead a good life within the planet’s limits then these provisioning systems need to be fundamentally restructured to allow for basic needs to be met at a much lower level of resource use.'

More: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5358763/Man-lead-good-sustainable-life-not-Study.html

#Sustainability #Responsibility #WeWillLeaveThisPlaceWorseForOurHavingBeenHere #Environment

1   socal2   ignore (0)   2018 May 14, 2:44pm   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote        

Feux Follets says
'Radical changes are needed if all people are to live well within the limits of the planet.

'These include moving beyond the pursuit of economic growth in wealthy nations, shifting rapidly from fossil fuels to renewable energy, and significantly reducing inequality.


Yeah - no thanks!
2   Feux Follets   ignore (1)   2018 May 14, 2:46pm   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote        

socal2 says
Yeah - no thanks!


Nothing like leaving the world a worse place for our having been in it now is there ?

Not to fear - we will not last as a specifies either so hopefully what ever comes next isn't as ignorant as we have been.
3   socal2   ignore (0)   2018 May 14, 2:49pm   ↑ like (2)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote        

Feux Follets says
Nothing like leaving the world a worse place for our having been in it now is there ?


Not me - I've spent nearly a quarter century working in the water industry trying to ensure water optimization, efficiency and keeping sewage out of our bodies of water.

North America is cleaner and healthier now than it was 50 years ago despite a much larger population and more consumerism.

What have you done?
4   Feux Follets   ignore (1)   2018 May 14, 2:54pm   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote        

socal2 says
Not me - I've spent nearly a quarter century working in the water industry trying to ensure water optimization, efficiency and keeping sewage out of our bodies of water.


Good for you !

socal2 says
What have you done?


Pretty much the same except for a longer period of time and I had to do your task along with optimization and pollution abatement on many other moving parts at the same time, not just one facet
5   Heraclitusstudent   ignore (1)   2018 May 14, 3:02pm   ↑ like (3)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote        

Feux Follets says
Mankind can either lead a 'good life'... or a sustainable one, but NOT both


The plan seems to be: "I live the good life and most other people the sustainable one".

Too bad most people have the same idea.
6   socal2   ignore (0)   2018 May 14, 3:13pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote        

Feux Follets says
Does everything on this forum have to be dragged down to the lowest common denominator and then turned into a political shit storm ?


Fair enough - does every environmental solution demanded by the doom and gloomers require "radical change" and reduction in economic growth and complete overhaul of our economies (to combat income inequality)? I am surprised the author didn't also throw in racism and gender issues into the mix too!

Just like all the failed Marxist policies in the dust bin of history, it is very difficult to curb natural human development without alot of pain and suffering.

I guarantee you that policies enacted by the Greens (if they could get away with it) will be much more damaging to the development of the human species in the very short term than anything climate change can throw at us.
7   Heraclitusstudent   ignore (1)   2018 May 14, 3:28pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote        

socal2 says
reduction in economic growth


How much reduction in economic growth have you seen so far, in a state like CA, from policies that led to a good portion of renewable energy?

socal2 says
Just like all the failed Marxist policies in the dust bin of history

You know policies like creating national parks, banning DDT, having a required gas mileage for cars....
Marxists! Dust bin of history!
8   socal2   ignore (0)   2018 May 14, 3:36pm   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote        

Heraclitusstudent says
You know policies like creating national parks, banning DDT, having a required gas mileage for cars....
Marxists! Dust bin of history!


You know that banning DDT is probably one of the worst examples of environmental reform you could bring up? Tens (hundreds?) of millions of Africans died needlessly to malaria due to foolish worldwide ban of DDT thanks to Rachel Carson's book.

Even the World Health Organization realized the mistake and reversed the ban 10 years ago.
http://www.who.int/mediacentre/news/releases/2006/pr50/en/
9   socal2   ignore (0)   2018 May 14, 3:38pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote        

Heraclitusstudent says
Marxists! Dust bin of history!


Yes - dustbin of history. You know all those great Marxist environmental programs like collectivization of farming?

How did that work out for the Kulaks?

How about the North Koreans?
10   EBGuy   ignore (0)   2018 May 14, 3:40pm   ↑ like (2)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote        

The world is getting greener. Why does no one want to know?
As carbon dioxide levels have risen, the planet’s green vegetation has increased by 14 per cent
CO2 fertilisation explains 70 per cent of the greening trend.
11   Heraclitusstudent   ignore (1)   2018 May 14, 3:52pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote        

socal2 says
Yes - dustbin of history. You know all those great Marxist environmental programs like collectivization of farming?


You seem to be a very discerning and nuanced guy.

Collectivization was meant for environmental purpose?

And we never had an environmental program that wasn't Marxist?

Or do you mean all government programs are inherently Marxists? Like the race to the moon.
12   RC2006   ignore (0)   2018 May 14, 3:57pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote        

Less people less consumption, everybody is happy including our environment. The longer we take to address this the more bloody it will be.
13   HEYYOU   ignore (13)   2018 May 14, 3:59pm   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote        

socal2 says
Yes - dustbin of history. You know all those great Marxist environmental programs like collectivization of farming?


How about America's farm subsidies thru Redistribution Socialism taken from all American taxpayers?
I'm starting a 1,000,000 acre farm for the govt. handout.

Heraclitusstudent,

Now that's "discerning and nuanced" :-)

Everything is about the money.
14   Heraclitusstudent   ignore (1)   2018 May 14, 4:50pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote        

HEYYOU says
Everything is about the money.


Maybe it is. The relevant concept is the 2 organizing principles in a hierarchical society: top-down, versus bottom-up.

You can organize a group from the top: every one does what the leader says.
Or you can let everyone do whatever they want, and hope people self-organize, i.e. bottom-up, without any central guidance.

What socal2 calls "marxist" seems to be anything top-down.

The idea of capitalism is based on bottom-up organization: letting companies and people self-organize.
But companies are top-down organizations, most of the time. Though large companies need to allow a level of bottom-up.
Religions like Catholicism are largely top-down.

Intelligent design is the idea of top-down creation.
But evolution is completely bottom-up organization - Indeed it's remarkable that many proponents of capitalism don't believe intelligent life could emerge is a similar way.

Living on a wild frontier also means a bottom-up organization.
But in a city, or limited space, inter-dependencies mean that a good amount of top-down organization is needed.

It doesn't take a genius to see that, a societal level, pure bottom-up means total chaos, while pure top-down is too rigid and will be sub-optimal in many cases , because of the limited knowledge of people at the top. Thus we need both.
And both means we have people at the top that push in a direction that make sense at the aggregate level, but also let a good amount of flexibility in the system.
15   socal2   ignore (0)   2018 May 14, 5:30pm   ↑ like (2)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote        

Heraclitusstudent says
Or do you mean all government programs are inherently Marxists?


No - just the government programs that tell me I can't have a "good life" if I don't "radically" change the way I live, reduce economic growth and embrace redistribution.
16   Heraclitusstudent   ignore (1)   2018 May 14, 6:25pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote        

socal2 says
No - just the government programs that tell me I can't have a "good life" if I don't "radically" change the way I live, reduce economic growth and embrace redistribution.


What do you think happens to the bacteria when they grow to fill out of the petri dish?
Their government comes in and changes the way they live and reduces growth.
They wish.
17   Onvacation   ignore (2)   2018 May 15, 7:26am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote        

Feux Follets says
researchers have found.

Are these the same researchers that predicted Manhattan and Florida under water by now?

If the plan is tax and redistribute until everyone lives a third world existence except the overlords, count me out.
18   P N Dr Lo R   ignore (0)   2018 May 15, 7:32am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote        

Feux Follets says
sustainability,
The latest buzzword.
19   Tenpoundbass   ignore (10)   2018 May 15, 8:44am   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote        

Fat kid in the back raising his hand.

but but but I thought living a sustainable life IS the Good Life?

You mean Liberals have been intentionally lying to us all of these years? What else are they lying about?

Nothing to see here just more Marxist Bullshit propaganda and out right Gay retarded Liberal Lies.

This is why we can't take you lying motherfuckers seriously, Ya'll bitches Lysol the damn time!
20   NuttBoxer   ignore (2)   2018 May 15, 11:17am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote        

Feux Follets says
Mankind can either lead a 'good life'... or a sustainable one, but NOT both.......


Bullshit on that. The people who say that think a good life requires lots of chemicals that will kill them, things that will consume their time, and busyness that will stress them. Give me open space, very little neighbors, and a place to farm so I can provide my own food, and relative proximity to some decent waves, and I'm set.
21   marcus   ignore (1)   2018 May 15, 11:46am   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote        

Tenpoundbass says
This is why we can't take you lying motherfuckers seriously


Making intelligent observations is not lying. Lying is what Trump does, more than any public figure in the history of lying. But that's all really beside the point.

Let's turn off the political hate mongering for a minute and look seriously at this.

There is a reason that sustainability is even a word that's thrown around these days, mostly outside of the political world, because sustainability is about as popular, even among democrats, as tax increases. But of course it's true that humans eventually will live with smaller "footprints" that is after the population has been at or above 10 billion for a while. Common sense tells us this is true.

It's a relative thing though. We've made progress. A lot of people recycle. A lot of people drive efficient cars, and have efficient air conditioners and so on. A lot of relative sustainability simply comes from a combination of technology and consumers keeping costs down.

People can live great lives without having a mcMansion, or a large gas guzzling SUV or truck they don't need. If living the good life means feeling bigger than the next guy on the road or having a better pool in your back yard, then that's kind of messed up anyway. I'm not going to look down on those that consume in a way that I can't relate to, but I'm going to be plenty happy without consuming that way myself.

So we don't achieve balance right way. Baby steps. That's fine.
22   ForcedTQ   ignore (0)   2018 May 15, 2:42pm   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote        

Everyone needs to understand what "sustainability" is. It's the ability to continue. That doesn't mean that you're living sustainably because you recycle, had PV installed on your roof, buy organic vegetables and fruit from the grocery store, and drive a non-fossil fuel auto around.
23   lostand confused   ignore (0)   2018 May 15, 2:51pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote        

Why don't you sustainable types self deport to a third world country and live in huts?




The Housing Trap
You're being set up to spend your life paying off a debt you don't need to take on, for a house that costs far more than it should. The conspirators are all around you, smiling to lure you in, carefully choosing their words and watching your reactions as they push your buttons, anxiously waiting for the moment when you sign the papers that will trap you and guarantee their payoff. Don't be just another victim of the housing market. Use this book to defend your freedom and defeat their schemes. You can win the game, but first you have to learn how to play it.
115 pages, $12.50

Kindle version available


about   best comments   contact   one year ago   suggestions