Can everyone in the world live like you/me?

[Mark1031]

Can everyone in the world live like me? Does everyone want to? Why should I have what I have and others not simply by chance of birth? Should I voluntarily give up some of my stuff? Why/Why Not?

Now you must think I am rich or something. Not by my neighborhood standards but by US standards I’m comfortable and by world standards I am probably rich.
I have:
ca.2000 sq ft home in So. Cal 1 mile from ocean (perfect climate).-for family of 5. Very small by local standards.
2, soon to be 3 cars- its So Cal no mass transit.
various other good stuff, $$ for holidays, retirement, electronics etc.

This is sort of upper middle class in the US which I have by virtue of being born here and going to school and not screwing up too much. I suspect most people in the world work much harder to get much less.

Now this is not really a capitalism/socialism type of question but an environmental/sustainability/globalism question. Can the world sustain this standard of living for everyone? Will we get there and what will be the consequences? Will we decline somewhat in the west, will there be resource wars, environmental catastrophe? Will technology development allow this lifestyle to be sustainable everywhere? Forever?

Is the whole economic model of “growth” good for the world? Remember in the US the most patriotic thing you can do is consume and if you don’t we get a depression.

 

[Luckymoose]

No. In order to keep our standard of living others must suffer. It is basic economics.

 

[MjM]

Now you must think I am rich or something...

I have:
ca.2000 sq ft home in So. Cal 1 mile from ocean (perfect climate).-for family of 5. Very small by local standards.
2, soon to be 3 cars- its So Cal no mass transit.
various other good stuff, $$ for holidays, retirement, electronics etc.

Number 1 itself is enough to make you rich. Thats probably over a million dollar house there, and 3 cars and extra money?

 

[GamezRule]

Well, quite frankly, the Earth doesn't have enough resources to sustain 6 billion middle class people.

 

[innonimatu]

Well, quite frankly, the Earth doesn't have enough resources to sustain 6 billion middle class people.

I don't see why not. The only looming problem is energy, and we do receive on our planed far. far more than we need. We just have to improve the technology for collecting and using it efficiently.

I'd cut down or cars, but everything else which is part of that "middle class lifestyle" should be doable.

As for the growth model, I couldn't despise it more. But the fact is that we're crossing into virtual "growth" already, for lack of ability to cram more material stuff into consumer's lives. Virtual growth is comparatively cheap on resources, much of it being either literally virtual (deals with imaginary property on data networks), or the commercialization of material stuff which used to be free.

 

[illram]

This is discussed in one of the last chapters of "Collapse." I think the last chapter. IIRC there are not enough resources (food, water, energy) to sustain even the population of China reaching American levels of consumption, much less the world.

 

[Cutlass]

No. In order to keep our standard of living others must suffer. It is basic economics.

That doesn't even remotely resemble being true. It is true that not everyone can live as Americans live now with current tech. But improving tech means that a constantly increasing number of people can live well.

 

[jtb1127]

That doesn't even remotely resemble being true. It is true that not everyone can live as Americans live now with current tech. But improving tech means that a constantly increasing number of people can live well.

Yeah, people thought the same thing in the 1700s. I'm agreeing with you, I'm not sure if it sounds like it though.

 

[innonimatu]

This is discussed in one of the last chapters of "Collapse."

Oh, good, then we know we can dismiss it!

 

[Kozmos]

A little population control would be good but the whole economy is focused on growth.

 

[Bootstoots]

Yeah, people thought the same thing in the 1700s. I'm agreeing with you, I'm not sure if it sounds like it though.

What percentage of the world's population today lives well by 1700s standards? I suspect nearly everyone does, barring perhaps a few of the poorest places on the planet. That's what technological progress does.

 

[Dachs]

Oh, good, then we know we can dismiss it!

 

[jtb1127]

What percentage of the world's population today lives well by 1700s standards? I suspect nearly everyone does, barring perhaps a few of the poorest places on the planet. That's what technological progress does.

I knew I would be misunderstood as soon as I posted. Of course we live by better standards then in the 1700s. What I meant was that during the 1700s, demographists, and everyone else thought that the earth could not possibly sustain a population much bigger than what it was at the time. But, technological advances lead to a sky rocket in population growth. I am saying that it may be possible for technological advances to allow for more middle class citizens on the planet than we except.

 

[illram]

Why is Collapse easily dismissed Inno? At least, why is that particular snippet from Collapse easily dismissed?

 

[History_Buff]

Can the Earth support 10 Billion people living like the Canadians/Americans/Europeans of today? No. Not even close.

Can the Earth support 10 Billion people living with less, in a more urban environment, using far less fossil fuels? I would say almost certainly. We have the food, we have the space, and we could provide enough power, it would just be more expensive. But not so much so to be out of reach.

 

[Camikaze]

I find it hard to believe that the standard of living most of us here enjoy could be extended to the entire world under a fossil fuel based economic model. That kinda relies on a linear economic conception that doesn't seem to me to make much sense (although perhaps one of our economists might argue against this?). That's why renewable energy based economies are the future, with or without global warming.

 

[Archbob]

No, you'd need a planet much bigger than earth with many more resources.

 

[Cutlass]

Why limit to fossil fuels? The idea that living standards can't improve is dependent on static technology. And that hasn't been true for 300 years.

 

[bombshoo]

I don't think the whole world can live the particular way we in the West live now, but that doesn't mean that living standards have to decline overall. We are extremely inefficient in everything from food production to energy to transportation. Even if we were to technologically stagnate (which we won't) we could become a thousand times more efficient with technologies that are already available but are just not being put into widespread use for various political and economic reasons.

I suppose the bigger question is if it will take some sort of crash to give us the proper incentives.

 

[Orka]

In the long run, technology will ensure that luxurious living standards of today will become the normal of tomorrow. It has always been this way, and I believe it will always be that way (unless we destroy ourselves, ofc). If you think about it, the amount of resources we have is practically infinite - the whole universe, theoretically. We're simply gradually get greater and greater access to it through technological progress.

Though of course, "the long run" is not exactly comforting to those who are currently struggling.