Consumption, Not Population Is Our Main Environmental Threat

[Peikko 1,575]

Are you saying that gluttony is applicable to all consumption, or just food/drink? I thought it applied only to food/drink, but if it can be applied to all consumption, then fair dos.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

A good case in point might be to ask some of the German VJers from the former West Germany what happened (and is happening) to their country's economy and overall standard of living after the Berlin wall fell and reunification.

You don't rebuild half a country and provide for its citizens without taking away something from the ones you're already providing for.

Good example. You don't see Germans living in grass huts now, do you MC?

Perhaps you should cut to the chase and give us an idea of exactly what sacrifices we could easily make that would make a huge difference to the quality of life in the developing world.

That's just it. I don't know, but my conscience tells me that we should all be concerned about our fellow men and women, regardless of what country they're from.

I doubt you'll find too many people here who aren't concerned.

The point is that there aren't any easy solutions to this - and the idea that turning off a couple of lights you're not using will somehow facilitate a magical change to someone living in Sudan is just nonsense.

Especially when you accept that many of these nations are ruled by despotic regimes.

[GaryC 7]

Are you saying that gluttony is applicable to all consumption, or just food/drink? I thought it applied only to food/drink, but if it can be applied to all consumption, then fair dos.

I don't know if it's official or not but when I see some rich azzhat doing the "conspicuous consumption" thing I would call it gluttony even if it didn't involve food. I have always understood it to mean overindugence of any kind.

[Marilyn. 340]

according to Merriam-Webster it means this...

1 : excess in eating or drinking

2 : greedy or excessive indulgence

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/gluttony

wiki says this...

Derived from the Latin gluttire, meaning to gulp down or swallow, gluttony is the over-indulgence and over-consumption of food, drink, or intoxicants to the point of waste.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gluttony

Edited April 14, 2009 by *Marilyn*

[Peikko 1,575]

A good case in point might be to ask some of the German VJers from the former West Germany what happened (and is happening) to their country's economy and overall standard of living after the Berlin wall fell and reunification.

You don't rebuild half a country and provide for its citizens without taking away something from the ones you're already providing for.

Good example. You don't see Germans living in grass huts now, do you MC?

Perhaps you should cut to the chase and give us an idea of exactly what sacrifices we could easily make that would make a huge difference to the quality of life in the developing world.

That's just it. I don't know, but my conscience tells me that we should all be concerned about our fellow men and women, regardless of what country they're from.

I doubt you'll find too many people here who aren't concerned.

The point is that there aren't any easy solutions to this - and the idea that turning off a couple of lights you're not using will somehow facilitate a magical change to someone living in Sudan is just nonsense.

Especially when you accept that many of these nations are ruled by despotic regimes.

It's not possible to make this kind of change at the individual level and there are no easy or magical solutions. That isn't to say I don't care Steven - and I am sure no one who has a conscience is saying that what we have evolved at this point is either fair or even right.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

A good case in point might be to ask some of the German VJers from the former West Germany what happened (and is happening) to their country's economy and overall standard of living after the Berlin wall fell and reunification.

You don't rebuild half a country and provide for its citizens without taking away something from the ones you're already providing for.

Good example. You don't see Germans living in grass huts now, do you MC?

Perhaps you should cut to the chase and give us an idea of exactly what sacrifices we could easily make that would make a huge difference to the quality of life in the developing world.

That's just it. I don't know, but my conscience tells me that we should all be concerned about our fellow men and women, regardless of what country they're from.

I doubt you'll find too many people here who aren't concerned.

The point is that there aren't any easy solutions to this - and the idea that turning off a couple of lights you're not using will somehow facilitate a magical change to someone living in Sudan is just nonsense.

Especially when you accept that many of these nations are ruled by despotic regimes.

I don't understand the attitude that MC expressed earlier - that she wouldn't be willing to give her current standard of living even if it meant that the substandard living of Third World Nations would improve.

It's not possible to make this kind of change at the individual level and there are no easy or magical solutions. That isn't to say I don't care Steven - and I am sure no one who has a conscience is saying that what we have evolved at this point is either fair or even right.

No magical solutions? So that would include your concern about overpopulation, eh? Eh? Hmmmm... thanks for playing.

[Peikko 1,575]

Are you saying that gluttony is applicable to all consumption, or just food/drink? I thought it applied only to food/drink, but if it can be applied to all consumption, then fair dos.

I don't know if it's official or not but when I see some rich azzhat doing the "conspicuous consumption" thing I would call it gluttony even if it didn't involve food. I have always understood it to mean overindugence of any kind.

How does one apply that at corporate level though? It seems we do not feel that is necessary, sadly. I am also somewhat torn by the idea that the consumer society is pretty much in lines with providing for overindulgence, it almost demands it.

[mawilson 2,133]

No magical solutions? So that would include your concern about overpopulation, eh? Eh? Hmmmm... thanks for playing.

Overpopulation threatens *my* standard of living, so yes, I am concerned about overpopulation.

[Peikko 1,575]

A good case in point might be to ask some of the German VJers from the former West Germany what happened (and is happening) to their country's economy and overall standard of living after the Berlin wall fell and reunification.

You don't rebuild half a country and provide for its citizens without taking away something from the ones you're already providing for.

Good example. You don't see Germans living in grass huts now, do you MC?

Perhaps you should cut to the chase and give us an idea of exactly what sacrifices we could easily make that would make a huge difference to the quality of life in the developing world.

That's just it. I don't know, but my conscience tells me that we should all be concerned about our fellow men and women, regardless of what country they're from.

I doubt you'll find too many people here who aren't concerned.

The point is that there aren't any easy solutions to this - and the idea that turning off a couple of lights you're not using will somehow facilitate a magical change to someone living in Sudan is just nonsense.

Especially when you accept that many of these nations are ruled by despotic regimes.

I don't understand the attitude that MC expressed earlier - that she wouldn't be willing to give her current standard of living even if it meant that the substandard living of Third World Nations would improve.

It's not possible to make this kind of change at the individual level and there are no easy or magical solutions. That isn't to say I don't care Steven - and I am sure no one who has a conscience is saying that what we have evolved at this point is either fair or even right.

No magical solutions? So that would include your concern about overpopulation, eh? Eh? Hmmmm... thanks for playing.

Yes, of course there is no easy way to reduce the population now is there? There is no sensible way of asking people at an individual level to stop 'overconsuming' either, because there is no measure of 'consumption'.

[Brit Abroad 166]

The real irony here is that some of you are so busy pointing fingers at each other's colonialism or socialist tendencies that both sides are missing the actual point.

Neither consumerism or population are the sole factors that contribute to global distribution of wealth. We can argue all day that asset-stripping from foreign lands is directly/indirectly responsible for the poverty and the disparity in our living conditions, but how much of that is true in an ongoing basis is questionable at best.

In any third world country you have capitalism, as well as a lack of socialism. Let me quantify that for those of you who want to assign blame to people who are simply living in "affluence" as a result of the accident of their birth. Classic example is the Yemeni/Somalian pirate situation. And, for the sake of clarity, I'm NOT talking about the moral rights and wrongs of their actions, simply the effect that their actions have on the wealth distribution. Pirates receive massive ransom payments, which is partially reinvested in safeguarding the future of their lucrative business (ie recruiting more pirates, maintaining and increasing their fleet of transport and communication tools etc) and partially into increasing the local economy. More buying power traditionally increases the local wealth and determines a pattern of supply and demand. Basic economics, right? Then we delve deeper into how that wealth is distributed. How many pirate groups can acquire what they need locally? I would suggest very few shipping vessels can be acquired from the poor, so they look to purchase from a developed country that can and DOES have what they want. This means that none of that money is going to increase the national economy of their own country.

I watch people walk past beggars in the street, blaming them for their misfortunes while knowing nothing of what drove that person to the streets in the first place and whether they were actually contributors or simply victims of their circumstances. When you apply this attitude on a global level, it's very easy to see why the third world proliferates poverty on such a massive scale. It's lack of interest, apathy, ignorance and intolerance of differences.

Then we have the nasty R word cropping up. Religion is as responsible for global poverty as anything else and could probably give a considerably contribution to easing the world poverty levels than they do. Don't believe me? Why are religious societies the richest and largest landowning organisations in the world? That's something I'll leave you to ponder. Happy to ask you to contribute to their coffers while they stockpile what they want to increase their following. Add to that, the invasions on other countries (can you say Iraq war?) where we (the west) walk into a functioning country with rather more than basic services available and we decimate it's public services structure. Religions create wars. Wars decimate resources and make civilian infrastructure insecure. It takes a great deal of time to recover from the financial effects of war - can you say recession? taxation? America's citizens and residents will be paying for the Iraq/Afghanistan wars for many, many decades to come and it's achieved what? A change of regional politics? No. A change of wealth distribution in that region? No. Better standard of living for the locals? No. It simply got rid of a figurehead for a larger problem, that won't be conquered by bullying or interference.

Charities can also be included in the number of organisations that share some responsibility. While they are well-meaning, their overheads in running a charitable organisation means that (in most cases) less than 10% of anything you donate actually reaches those on whose behalf it is collected. That's before the charities start spending it and having to bribe their way through the sticky politics of underdeveloped countries' local systems, before they can pass on any direct and meaningful benefit.

Then we have the climate and available resources of fresh water and sustainable crop growth. Many countries suffer from totally different crop pestilence than the somewhat temperate US and European zones - so helping them find self-sustaining produce and methods of reducing the blight/pestilence losses would be rather more beneficial than simply injecting cash into their already corrupt local systems. A classic (if controversial) example here is Afghanistan, and how the west is sending mixed signals to the farmers. On one hand we have the Developed world governments telling farmers that growing cocaine crops is wrong, and trying to wean them away from that produce .. and on the other we have the Drug barons telling them to grow more to feed to those same developed world populations. So, can you really blame the Afghanis for being confused? Who would you listen to in their place? A foreign government or your local drugs barons who come around with their weapons and bully-boys?

The west has a bad history of trying to help by doing, rather than by teaching, so all we do is go in and build structures that the local people are not sufficiently skilled or knowledgeable about maintaining the systems that the west introduces. Until WE learn how to help the poorer nations, I think we ought to do a little more soul-searching on what products and services we, the consumerists, actually consume.

If you're the kind of person who has to have a new car every 3 years, who replaces your white goods every couple of years, has a new kitchen on a whim, buys lots of fashionable clothes to look great and feel good .. perhaps examine WHERE the money really goes. How much goes to the end producer (normally the exploited worker in a third world or underdeveloped country) and how much into pockets of the fat-cat capitalists who have no qualms about unearned income from the backs of others.

Politics are also contributory, in some cases directly. Take the Cuba and America situation. America's embargo on trade goods and a trading relationship actually hurts Cuba, whether they will admit it or not. A country that cannot self-sustain but has rich neighbours will always look to supply what it can to any consumer. No country has perfect politics. Even the democratic west has widescale political corruption. We don't exactly hold our corrupt (and often morally bankrupt) governments to account, do we? Yet we expect the third world nations to get their own house in order. How? In poor nations, power is held by those with the will to force others beneath them to do their bidding. Our western governments have a direct relationship to how other nations trade with the world. I am eternally grateful that Barack Obama has surrounded himself with politicians who are open to the idea that nothing in the world changes by excluding other nations. Force changes nothing. It certainly doesn't force a regime change and it doesn't improve the situation for those at the bottom of the food chain.

So, people of Vj, let's stop pointing fingers at our own members and start looking at the bigger picture. We can all contribute in tiny ways - by forcing our governments to do OUR bidding and not their own (they are elected by US, after all) - and making them more accountable for the way they spend OUR money; by cutting down on the things we want, rather than the things we need (and being smart and responsible enough to know the difference between them) and by educating others in skills and practices that will help improve the world for all of us. For me, the number one priority is stamping out the corruption which holds us back.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

A good case in point might be to ask some of the German VJers from the former West Germany what happened (and is happening) to their country's economy and overall standard of living after the Berlin wall fell and reunification.

You don't rebuild half a country and provide for its citizens without taking away something from the ones you're already providing for.

Good example. You don't see Germans living in grass huts now, do you MC?

Perhaps you should cut to the chase and give us an idea of exactly what sacrifices we could easily make that would make a huge difference to the quality of life in the developing world.

That's just it. I don't know, but my conscience tells me that we should all be concerned about our fellow men and women, regardless of what country they're from.

I doubt you'll find too many people here who aren't concerned.

The point is that there aren't any easy solutions to this - and the idea that turning off a couple of lights you're not using will somehow facilitate a magical change to someone living in Sudan is just nonsense.

Especially when you accept that many of these nations are ruled by despotic regimes.

I don't understand the attitude that MC expressed earlier - that she wouldn't be willing to give her current standard of living even if it meant that the substandard living of Third World Nations would improve.

It's not possible to make this kind of change at the individual level and there are no easy or magical solutions. That isn't to say I don't care Steven - and I am sure no one who has a conscience is saying that what we have evolved at this point is either fair or even right.

No magical solutions? So that would include your concern about overpopulation, eh? Eh? Hmmmm... thanks for playing.

Well how could you possibly go about it?

There's China's One Child policy, but that's pretty abhorrent to anyone wtih liberal humanist views.

How would you go about mandating a national redistribution of wealth and resources?

All of these things would require some form of totalitarianism to enforce them on people. We don't do totalitarian dictatorships.

[The_Dude 1,142]

A good case in point might be to ask some of the German VJers from the former West Germany what happened (and is happening) to their country's economy and overall standard of living after the Berlin wall fell and reunification.

You don't rebuild half a country and provide for its citizens without taking away something from the ones you're already providing for.

Good example. You don't see Germans living in grass huts now, do you MC?

Perhaps you should cut to the chase and give us an idea of exactly what sacrifices we could easily make that would make a huge difference to the quality of life in the developing world.

That's just it. I don't know, but my conscience tells me that we should all be concerned about our fellow men and women, regardless of what country they're from.

I doubt you'll find too many people here who aren't concerned.

The point is that there aren't any easy solutions to this - and the idea that turning off a couple of lights you're not using will somehow facilitate a magical change to someone living in Sudan is just nonsense.

Especially when you accept that many of these nations are ruled by despotic regimes.

I don't understand the attitude that MC expressed earlier - that she wouldn't be willing to give her current standard of living even if it meant that the substandard living of Third World Nations would improve.

It's not possible to make this kind of change at the individual level and there are no easy or magical solutions. That isn't to say I don't care Steven - and I am sure no one who has a conscience is saying that what we have evolved at this point is either fair or even right.

No magical solutions? So that would include your concern about overpopulation, eh? Eh? Hmmmm... thanks for playing.

Well how could you possibly go about it?

There's China's One Child policy, but that's pretty abhorrent to anyone wtih liberal humanist views.

How would you go about mandating a national redistribution of wealth and resources?

All of these things would require some form of totalitarianism to enforce them on people. We don't do totalitarian dictatorships.

Yeah, and china has been soooo successful at administering this policy

It's not too far fetched that in the next 50 years, china and india will face foodsource problems. Their expanding populations and urban centers are already beginning to encroach upon rural farmlands.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

So, people of Vj, let's stop pointing fingers at our own members and start looking at the bigger picture. We can all contribute in tiny ways - by forcing our governments to do OUR bidding and not their own (they are elected by US, after all) - and making them more accountable for the way they spend OUR money; by cutting down on the things we want, rather than the things we need (and being smart and responsible enough to know the difference between them) and by educating others in skills and practices that will help improve the world for all of us. For me, the number one priority is stamping out the corruption which holds us back.

Thanks, Brit Abroad, for that well thought out post.

You said a lot but I want to respond to one particular thing - cash crops in Third World Nations. Cash crops have been shown to actually contribute more the poverty of local communities than help them. These crops tend to rape the soil of nutrients, use a tremendous amount of water and leave little good soil for self sustaining crops. There is a movement in this country (USA) to grow more foods locally. Large scale agriculture was sold to us as the most economical way to produce food, but the evidence has show otherwise. What I think is needed is an ever growing awareness that sustainability on a small scale is what this world needs desperately. And it is achievable. That isn't to say that all importation and exportation will cease, but it's just returning back to a more sensible approach towards locality and sustainability. We've become way too interdependent and in doing so, left a world in perpetual state of extreme volatility.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

No magical solutions? So that would include your concern about overpopulation, eh? Eh? Hmmmm... thanks for playing.

Overpopulation threatens *my* standard of living, so yes, I am concerned about overpopulation.

Maintaining your current standard of living is unimportant in the grand scheme of things, my British Red Coat friend.

[Brit Abroad 166]

You said a lot but I want to respond to one particular thing - cash crops in Third World Nations. Cash crops have been shown to actually contribute more the poverty of local communities than help them. These crops tend to rape the soil of nutrients, use a tremendous amount of water and leave little good soil for self sustaining crops. There is a movement in this country (USA) to grow more foods locally. Large scale agriculture was sold to us as the most economical way to produce food, but the evidence has show otherwise. What I think is needed is an ever growing awareness that sustainability on a small scale is what this world needs desperately. And it is achievable. That isn't to say that all importation and exportation will cease, but it's just returning back to a more sensible approach towards locality and sustainability. We've become way too interdependent and in doing so, left a world in perpetual state of extreme volatility.

I agree wholeheartedly that small scale is what is needed. Ever notice that in a recession more people develop their own vegetable patch?

My major intent was to show us that there a whole host of things that every single one of us can be doing to make a difference. One person's contribution is negligible, but a billion's will make a noticeable difference.

To try and feel despair at the overall failure is hard, but it's better than the guilt of not trying at all, right?