At what point did we become "unsustainable?"

[lovett]

I hardly think it a problem that theft could be an investment. If I steal from my neighbor, use the money to start a business and become a millionaire, it certainly seems intuitive to describe me investing the products of my theft (in my own business). On many reading, the executive at Enron stole millions from various stakeholders; I hardly imagine such financially savvy guys failed to invest this money in the markets. The state, likewise, could steal and invest.

What I suppose you want to say is that theft yields only illegitimate investment. More than this, you (this 'you' ranges over both Amadeus and Abegweit) that taxation typically constitutes theft.

To his credit, Amadeus actually tries to offer something (very slightly) more than brute assertion to back this up. He implies that anything taken by force is stolen unless it belong to the taker, and that those things appropriated in taxation do not belong to the taker (the state). This principle is, I think, obviously false. A repo man does not own the re-possessed items he takes, but nonetheless does not steal them.

However, we should rather charitably interpret this situation as that of a man in some way empowered by a property holder to re-possess certain items. The principle that the libertarians here must rely on, then, is that an appropriation of any object is theft if and only if that appropriation was not committed by the rightful owner of that object, or by an agent empowered to so appropriate that property by said owner.

If the rightful owners of 'private property' are private individuals (specifically, those who currently own such property) then this sort of principle will forbid government appropriation; it will forbid taxation. Amadeus has merely asserted that the state is not rightful owner of property it currently appropriates through taxation. Aberweit has asserted nothing anywhere near as sophisticated, so perhaps he might like to do so. Either way, I think it glaringly obvious that this type of assertion need a substantive account of rightful ownership to have any credence. That is, one needs to be told what constitutes the rightful owning of some object (and how one acquires such rights). I await such an account with bated breath.

 

[Crezth]

Oh I see. Theft is necessary for "adequate and cost-effective energy to all". Just how is that working out?

In context, this post reads like "You want reductio ad absurdum? Well, I'll show you reductio ad absurdum!"

 

[Shaihulud]

Since its formation, the Universe was doomed.

 

[Smellincoffee]

Our lifestyles and the resources they rely upon have changed throughout history, so I think answering general question may not be possible. Once Britons used an unsustainable amount of wood for lumber and fuel; as that became increasingly dear they began using coal more. Now we use oil. I imagine, despite the fact that we know it is a finite resource and must be exhausted one day, that we will continue to use it until the wrench is thrown into our mighty engine of thoughtless consumption -- though maybe, as with the case of wood and coal, we will have time to adjust to a new fuel. The difference between wood and fossil fuels, however, is that wood grows back, and we can have a sustainable relationship with it provided the population shrinks and then stabilizes. I don't imagine there's planet enough to grow the wood needed for the fuel demands of seven billion humans.

I imagine the human race has taken out of the ecological system more than it has put in for much of its history: civilization allows us to run rampant, but we were wiping out entire species even before settling down into specialized labor and such. Witness the way our arrival in the Americas coincided with the disappearance of megafauna like the mammoths, sloths, lions, and bears...or the suspicious decline of Neanderthals as H. sapiens began moving into Europe.

 

[Mureke]

Witness the way our arrival in the Americas coincided with the disappearance of megafauna like the mammoths, sloths, lions, and bears...or the suspicious decline of Neanderthals as H. sapiens began moving into Europe.

While early humans seem to have participated in many cases of overkill, I wouldn't call the overkill of megafauna unsustainable. Species did consequently become extinct, but I don't think there are cases in which those species would have been key to the persistence of the wider ecosystem(s) as a whole. Stone Age man simply wasn't powerful enough to cause critical damage prior to domestication.

I would place the date of unsustainability to at least as far back as 2500 BC Sumeria, even to ~5000 BC to the advent of intense agriculture. In general, it seems that agriculture functioned to drain the land of resources without giving back an equal amount in return. This can be witnessed by the state of the Fertile Crescent today. There is no more great Cedar Forest there, nor is the Iraqi desert exactly fertile farmland.

The locality of Ancient Greek civilization mirrors the same phenomenon. It has even been suggested that the decline of the elm forests on the coast of the Mediterranean could date as far back as 4000 BC, possibly influenced by disease (link). Agriculture first appeared in Greece around 7000 BC, so it's not unthinkable that the decline of the forests (and even the possible Dutch Elm Disease, introduced by immigrants from Asia) would be related to agricultural activity.

Sedentism logically followed agriculture. By their nature, cities cannot be sustained by themselves. Resources have to be brought in from the outside to supply these dense populations. Once you have cities large enough, they will require more imported resources than what the environment can provide. The exception could be something like Maya cities which were widely spread out in the landscape and could pretty much sustain themselves.

In short, I would say that unsustainability originated in civilization itself.

 

[Leoreth]

I'd like to know what libertarians think about the unpaid for use and pollution of goods that belong to everyone, like the skies, waters and ground, by fossil energy producers and other corporations. Is that theft too?

 

[Tahuti]

I'd like to know what libertarians think about the unpaid for use and pollution of goods that belong to everyone, like the skies, waters and ground, by fossil energy producers and other corporations. Is that theft too?

Libertarians support tort law, meaning that if it can be proven that pollution spreads to other property owners, the latter are legally entitled to ask for compensation or cessation for that pollution. This idea is part of the wider Libertarian on property rights.

For example, if a factory is about to emit pollution that could potentionally and ruin a garden you own as property, that factory may not emit pollution without your permission, unless it finds a way to do so without (directly) affecting your property. If the factory does so anyway and your garden is demonstratably affected by it, you may sue the factory for that and receive compensation and/or cessation.

 

[Winner]

Around 1800 with the population boom and the industrial revolution.

No. The western world (as the sole instigator of modernity) was on its way to adapt its progress and reach a sustainable equilibrium. It's when modernity was rapidly introduced to the rest of the world (resulting in the disaster of unchecked overpopulation) when things went awry and the prospect of sustainable human existence on Earth was dashed:

 

[NedimNapoleon]

We aren't unsustainable, nor will we probably ever be. Humans like alot of animals have the ability when need comes to adapt, this whole sustainablity thing is nonsense, as the population expands so will agricultural techniques and so will we continue to feed ourselves and in the rare case we cannot feed ourselves, the population will decline but humans will never be extinct, we will always find a way to feed ourselves.

 

[Tee Kay]

"humans will never be extinct"...

Uh... that's setting standards a little low.

 

[NedimNapoleon]

I forgot to add ..."from the type of unsustainability you guys are talking about".

 

[Crezth]

Libertarians support tort law, meaning that if it can be proven that pollution spreads to other property owners, the latter are legally entitled to ask for compensation or cessation for that pollution. This idea is part of the wider Libertarian on property rights.

So, who decides whether or not compensation is awarded? Some governing body - a government, perhaps?

If so, as the hypothetical capitalist, I use my capital to buy off the person or persons making the decision. Your move, world.

 

[El_Machinae]

Well, in some ways, we become ecologically unsustainable at the exact same time our government debts became unsustainable. In other words, it's a short-hand way of saying "at current trends, things are going to get worse". You have a hard time insisting that any previous level of government debt was unsustainable, because clearly we're being sustained despite those historic levels. But, on the other hand, you know what you mean when you say 'unsustainable'.

When did 'we' become unsustainable? Well, it's tough to say. You can only prove that you were unsustainable after a collapse. So, we've seen thousands of instances: it happens whenever an ecosystem collapse causes a localized drop in the quality of life. IF those groups had been engaged in sustainable growth, then the quality of life wouldn't have dropped.

So, 'we've' been unsustainable for quite awhile, much in the same way that historic government debt levels were unsustainable. We can innovate our way out of debt, and out of ecosystem collapse, but it's not a guarantee. For example, the draining of aquifers looks to be unsustainable. This is especially true if current essential consumption relies on aquifer draining and if you think that consumption will increase.

Alternatively, when did your current diet regime become unsustainable? When you were 5 lbs underweight? 20 lbs overweight? 50 lbs overweight? I mean, you're still alive, so a strong case can be made that it was sustainable to date. But I don't think it really is.

(oh, and lol if you think the current system of pineapple supply isn't generated from state strong-arming (of the worst kind) and careful disease management to prevent outbreaks, etc. There's no crisis because there are authority figures that are handling it (and some of that is downright nasty forms of handling))

 

[warpus]

Given the rise of advocacy for "sustainability" in the past quarter-century, at what point did we, according to the advocates, become unsustainable? Unless the advocates believe human life has always been unsustainable, there must have been some point at history when it wasn't.

So, the poll question is quite simple: if you believe so, when did we become "unsustainable?"

It was a gradual change from sustainable to unsustainable, not a specific point at which we magically flipped from one to the other.

Think a dinosaur evolving into a bird.

 

[kochman]

We are not a sustainable species; any species that rises to dominate it's habitat becomes unsustainable, because of the constant demands exerted on that environment.

If we weren't as incredibly adaptable, as a species, as we are, I would say you are correct.
However, we are incredibly adaptable, as a species.

 

[Murky]

Given the rise of advocacy for "sustainability" in the past quarter-century, at what point did we, according to the advocates, become unsustainable? Unless the advocates believe human life has always been unsustainable, there must have been some point at history when it wasn't.

So, the poll question is quite simple: if you believe so, when did we become "unsustainable?"

So long as the resources are there to provide us with the basic necessities of life and there isn't any extinction level event, humans will survive as a species.

Our current trajectory of burning too much fossil fuels, not living within our means and using up too much natural resources is what is not sustainable. If we continue on this trajectory, modern society will eventually collapse, but there will likely be some survivors to pick up the pieces afterwords and begin anew.

edit:

Did a quick search and found this:
http://www.timelinetothefuture.com/index.php/en/prepare/social-economic-impacts/over-consumption

Over Consumption: To summarize, the human population has been allowed and encouraged to over consume, use and abuse our natural resources to a point where society at large is at an epic crossroads. In other words, as a global population, we have not only become unsustainable, but are knocking on the door to our own extinction.

 

[Tarquelne]

Given the rise of advocacy for "sustainability" in the past quarter-century, at what point did we, according to the advocates, become unsustainable?

Technically, the moment someone started harvesting some plant at greater than natural-replacement rate without planting another. (So probably a tree.)

"Unsustainable" goes way back. Trees and fish are both good examples. IIRC both England and Scandinavia had some shipbuilding booms that turned to busts due to deforestation, and many commercial fishing zones have been forced to shift to a more - or even completely - sustainable model due to overfishing.

The "sustainability" movement - except maybe among it's more rabid and less-informed advocates - isn't about survival of the human race or about totally getting off the grid (both in the specific sense or a broader one.) It's about a lifestyle/economy that doesn't need burdensome and/or irreplaceable externals to maintain itself. or at least consumes such commodities in an aware and responsible manner.

 

[GoodGame]

Given the rise of advocacy for "sustainability" in the past quarter-century, at what point did we, according to the advocates, become unsustainable? Unless the advocates believe human life has always been unsustainable, there must have been some point at history when it wasn't.

So, the poll question is quite simple: if you believe so, when did we become "unsustainable?"

You have to define "we" as in the USA, whole world, etc...

Also drifting in un-sustainability isn't necessarily a death sentence, since new technologies can follow.

For the sake of arguement, I put down the 1960's since that was the new Green Revolution that lead to population growth throughout the world.
Not all of that was "unsustainable". Some of it was simply using breeding techniques to create high-yield crops (read about Norman Borlaug for a start), but others of it is the use of pesticides (petroleum-derived). Some of it is increase in automation/industrialization of agriculture (also petroleum-derived to an extent). That fueled population growth that is dependent upon food that is dependent upon the price of oil (not going to argue peak oil in this thread).

A newer revolution was around the 2000-2010 for the sudden rise in the use of genetically-engineered crops throughout the world (soybean, cotton, corn, rice, etc...). That is probably sustainable, short of some biological/environmental catastrophe developing from it.

Definitely, if you have an energy-based economy in which you can't sustainably manufacture that energy inputs, then you don't have sustainability. You might have progress, and a chance of sustainability at some future time with some future technology.

There probably will be a sustainability crisis in which population growth forces conflict between agricultural land vs. urban/suburban use of land vs. environmental/global needs for the land to be like it was (e.g. carbon sinks).

 

[Murky]

“It is not necessary to change. Survival is not mandatory.” -W. Edwards Deming

One of the major problems I have with the libertarian party and the objectivists is this idea that we can never abuse, overuse, over-consume anything because they view resources as infinite when clearly they're not. The other major issue is the morality of externalizing costs and taking resources away from others for their own personal gain. Greed is indeed an ugly thing but they embrace it.

 

[Crezth]

The "sustainability" movement - except maybe among it's more rabid and less-informed advocates - isn't about survival of the human race or about totally getting off the grid (both in the specific sense or a broader one.) It's about a lifestyle/economy that doesn't need burdensome and/or irreplaceable externals to maintain itself. or at least consumes such commodities in an aware and responsible manner.

Head, meet nail.