Can everyone in the world live like you/me?
- Thread starter Mark1031
- Start date
Thorvald of Lym
A Little Sketchy
No. Number One, we'd need something like five Earths just to supply the raw materials. Number Two, the Western model of mass consumption is a linear system, which by definition is unsustainable. People are saying technology will save us, and I agree there's a lot in the world that could be run much more efficiently; but if the fundamentals of the system are broken, it's only delaying the crash. Unless the economy is retooled in such a way to truly promote recycling and sustainable growth, the end result looks a lot like WALL-E.
Oh I see, you meant that Mathusian predictions were first made back then and turned out to be completely wrong. That makes more sense.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.
Thorvald of Lym
A Little Sketchy
Kozmos
Jew Detective
There are couple of other raw materials running out...it is not really only about energy.
aimeeandbeatles
watermelon
- Joined
- Apr 5, 2007
- Messages
- 20,112
Maybe if people stop having so many babies for a few centuries it could be possible but a lot of them won't do that.
History_Buff
Deity
- Joined
- Aug 12, 2001
- Messages
- 6,529
But the problem isn't that we don't have enough food. We're already producing enough to feed the whole planet comfortably. What we have is a distribution and pricing problem; we in the West grow more than we need, but much of it is wasted, and price speculation means the prices of even staple foods are rising beyond what the third world can afford to pay. An increase of a few cents in price can make a big difference to them.
Actually, it looks like they will. Generally speaking, the more education a woman receives, and the better her economic conditions, the fewer children she will have. I've seen it posted here many times that the UN expects the world population to peak around 10 billion near 2075.
jtb1127
Deity
Exactly.
Well, I worry about food, water, and extinctions, as a practical limit. Energy is more problematic, because it's excessively clear that we're dependent upon fossil fuels. We can't even figure out how to replace our current energy consumption sustainably, so I don't know if we can continue to expand it at the 1-4% rate we've been doing historically. IF we converted fossil fuels into energy technology (through the magic of economy!), we should be able to get a greater total number of people onto sustainable energy. But I don't know if this 'total number' of people can approach the 'actual total' fast enough. It's a question of how hard we push for it.
It seems obvious that we could all have cars and nice houses, because substitution can be tapped to create these things. Enough food? Probably, though if my three concerns accelerate, we might have to change our lifestyles and lie to ourselves about how it's "better now".
To quibble with the OP, it's not patriotic to merely consume. It's patriotic to consume wisely. This means that a portion of our consumption has to actually be a type of investment. Ideally, we'd shift more and more of our consumption such that it was more and more of an investment, and then just enjoy the process of investing.
It seems obvious that we could all have cars and nice houses, because substitution can be tapped to create these things. Enough food? Probably, though if my three concerns accelerate, we might have to change our lifestyles and lie to ourselves about how it's "better now".
To quibble with the OP, it's not patriotic to merely consume. It's patriotic to consume wisely. This means that a portion of our consumption has to actually be a type of investment. Ideally, we'd shift more and more of our consumption such that it was more and more of an investment, and then just enjoy the process of investing.
Eukaryote
Deity
I think the world can sustain 7 billion middle class people as long as we find technologies to revoulutionize food production, energy production, and transportation.
You all have great confidence in technology. You certainly have history on your side (well except for the dark ages). I guess technology can solve our problems-until it doesn't. Fusion is an interesting example in the energy sector that was supposed to solve everything by now-except it is harder than it looks to make work.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fusion_power
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fusion_power
Orka
Warlord
- Joined
- Oct 29, 2010
- Messages
- 106
Even the Dark Ages were only dark from a Euro-centric point of view. Don't forget about the Middle East/China (whose technological advances were eventually adopted by the Europeans).
I agree with you on fusion's difficulties, though when fusion is finally viable our energy problems will basically be over. This isn't a problem with "technology", though, so much as proof that we are bad at predicting the long-term future. Technology steadily improves our lives nonetheless - we may not have fusion power or flying cars, but we have computers, cell phones, the Internet, etc. which are all significant.
JerichoHill
Bedrock of Knowledge
This is not true, and is not basic economics. Wealth creation is not a zero sum game.
I'm bullish on science and economics. But I'm bearish on people and politics. Just because we can solve some of these problems doesn't mean that we will. To many people resist doing so.
JerichoHill
Bedrock of Knowledge
Cutlass
Ditto on your previous post.
Ditto on your previous post.
It is not possible for 7 billion people to enjoy a middle-class existence given Earth's resources and societal organization. Who is going to provide the near-slave labor in factories to provide those billions their cheap crap? Where are all the raw materials going to come from -- and how are they to be harvested? Who is going to do the dirty work required for the middle and upper classes to live in a state of perpetual indulgence?
Your prosperity is dependent on the poverty and exploitation of others.
Your prosperity is dependent on the poverty and exploitation of others.
TheDanish
Prince
I've attended a few lectures on this very topic. The basic consensus of sustainability experts is this:
-No, the earth cannot sustain a quality of life equivalent to upper-middle class America for 7-9 billion people.
-However, that does not mean the earth cannot sustain 7-9 billion people living healthy and happy lives. You couldn't own three cars, but you could own a small house/apartment of moderate size. Land area is not an issue, but energy and resource consumption is.
Exactly, and even the term "Dark Ages" is a misnomer nowadays. There were quite a few technological and cultural advances made during the European "Dark Ages." Carolingian Renaissance anyone?
-No, the earth cannot sustain a quality of life equivalent to upper-middle class America for 7-9 billion people.
-However, that does not mean the earth cannot sustain 7-9 billion people living healthy and happy lives. You couldn't own three cars, but you could own a small house/apartment of moderate size. Land area is not an issue, but energy and resource consumption is.
Exactly, and even the term "Dark Ages" is a misnomer nowadays. There were quite a few technological and cultural advances made during the European "Dark Ages." Carolingian Renaissance anyone?
Luckymoose
The World is Mine
Well you just call me back when we just give out that expensive new tech to all the poor people.
Tani Coyote
Son of Huehuecoyotl
- Joined
- May 28, 2007
- Messages
- 15,195
Yes, everyone can, but only once we discover space travel and overall just became more efficient with our resources. Until then, there must be a deeply impoverished to support the privileged.
Of course, that doesn't mean the privileged can't help the impoverished out in the meantime!
Of course, that doesn't mean the privileged can't help the impoverished out in the meantime!
I agree except I dont with the economics part. I think the model is wrong esp for natural resources. It may make economic sense for China to build 1 new coal plant a week to support the manufacture of junk to sell to me but who is recovering the external costs of this strategy? If global warming puts Bangladesh under water how much is that worth? Who is paying for that? I believe the CIA has calculated that climate change can be expected to lead to more displaced persons, political instability, wars. Who is paying for this? If I run a company it is my job to maximize profits and it is in my own personal interest to do this over a very short timeframe. If I dont use my position to buy off politicians to prevent them from recovering the externalities of pollution, land destruction etc. I will be replaced with someone who will. As a commodity get scarce the price will go up and presumably lead to development of competing technology but not before I first remove all regulation and attempts to recover external cost as people scream for the price to remain stable. How long does it take to switch economies around to use new resources that may require massive infrastructure investment and development?
Similar threads
