Saving the planet without forcing people to stop consuming their emptiness away!

[Narz]

Seems like the more service oriented we become the more we can pump money around without too much environmental destruction.

For example, a $40 Red Strangeresque 99cent store binge would likely create over a pound of plastic waste (and pump, literally, tons of pollutants from the manufacture, transport and ultimate destruction of all his goodies into the atmosphere). However, if our hero got a massage instead (therapeutic or otherwise) he still would be stimulating the economy but without the waste.

Of course, people will still want to buy stuff they need and as much as possible this stuff should be produced as sustainably and locally as possible but for entertainment would you agree that a cultural shift from owning stuff to owning experiences (experiences that cost money of course cause dude, you can't have fun without mun[e]) would be ideal?

 

[BasketCase]

That's only half the equation.

The other half we need to know: how many people are practicing your proposed sustainable system? Throw enough people into the gears, and no system is sustainable, period.

The reason humans lived sustainably on Earth for the first five thousand years of our six-thousand-year recorded history is because there were so few of us for those first five thousand years. Actually for a much larger fraction than that, but you get the basic idea.

The population is an essential factor in forming a sustainable system.

However, if our hero got a massage instead (therapeutic or otherwise) he still would be stimulating the

Well, we can all see which direction your mind is heading right now, can't we?

 

[amadeus]

Despite the fact that many modern economies are service-oriented, we're probably using more raw materials per capita than any other time in our history.

 

[The Yankee]

This is all assuming that a massage or some other service, whatever it is, is of equal value to the consumer as an amount of material stuff, whatever it is.

 

[Narz]

That's only half the equation.

The other half we need to know: how many people are practicing your proposed sustainable system? Throw enough people into the gears, and no system is sustainable, period.

The reason humans lived sustainably on Earth for the first five thousand years of our six-thousand-year recorded history is because there were so few of us for those first five thousand years. Actually for a much larger fraction than that, but you get the basic idea.

The population is an essential factor in forming a sustainable system.

I agree, I already started a thread about it :
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=238422

Actually I started two, this one's from three years ago :
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=144340

Well, we can all see which direction your mind is heading right now, can't we?

Despite the fact that many modern economies are service-oriented, we're probably using more raw materials per capita than any other time in our history.

Well that's because everyone wants a bigger house, bigger car, etc. and also the population is expanding.

 

[Narz]

This is all assuming that a massage or some other service, whatever it is, is of equal value to the consumer as an amount of material stuff, whatever it is.

That's true.

In the case that people must/really want to buy something, ideally that something would be small and not waste alot of packaging. Bulky items should be taxed more heavily (especially vehicles), IMO.

 

[Swedishguy]

People should have experiences, hmm? Make them an account on CFC.

 

[Narz]

People should have experiences, hmm? Make them an account on CFC.

I suppose this is an experience of sorts. It doesn't stimulate the economy much though (well unless you click the banner ads, which you should, cause Thun is the man!).

 

[Valka D'Ur]

Owning an experience is fine in theory -- my favorite experiences involve holidays in the mountains and hiking through provincial/national parks. But in order to get those experiences in the first place, I'd have several hours of travel there (a couple of days, in the case of beachcombing along the shore of the Pacific). I would need food, water, I'd want to take along a camera, and depending on what time of year I went, I would need seasonally-appropriate clothing and gear. All of that means that stuff has to be made, transported, used, and the surplus disposed of in some way.

On the other hand, some of my other favorite experiences can be had for free: Stargazing, cuddling with my cats, hiking in the local wildlife sanctuary, watching the squirrels and birds in my fruit trees. But to have these experiences, I wouldn't be going further than a couple of miles from my house. Stargazing is something I can do from my yard. My cats (almost) never leave the house.

I guess my point is that the more you try to limit the amount of material stuff involved with whatever experiences you want to own, the smaller your range will be geographically -- unless you're one of those people who rows a boat across the Atlantic or walks around the world...

 

[Abaddon]

The massage probably uses oils. These are probably oil from palm hearts. These palms are grown in such numbers, they are DESTROYING THE PLANET!

MASSAGES CAUSE GLOBAL WARMING!

 

[BasketCase]

If I were to take that seriously, the rather surprising answer would be: possibly not.

Somewhere on the web I found a theory that trees in certain climates contribute to global warming rather than slowing it down. Something about water vapor, I forget the details.

Hey, everybody in CFC already knows--if you say the words "global warming" anywhere within earshot of me, I go nuts.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

Don't want that now do we? If we rename it "Mondial Heating", would that help?

 

[BasketCase]

That didn't work out--for some reason when my brain received "Mondial", Walter Mondale popped into my head.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

Had to google Mr. Mondale. I had a mental image of Mr. Mondale 'popping'. That didn't work out too well.

'Worldwide' is no good either since it suggests the world is 2D.

 

[BasketCase]

I did kinda hijack this thread, didn't I?

Here's the deal: there's lots of ways besides global warming that overconsuming can mess up the planet. No need to bring global warming into it.

 

[Tee Kay]

Seems like the more service oriented we become the more we can pump money around without too much environmental destruction.

Not really. I think the real answer lies with less packaging in all consumer products. Not only they're environmentally destructive but they're really annoying. I bought one of those DIY furnitures and I end up with a trash pile as big as the product itself when you can actually do just as well with less than half the packaging. It's environmentally destructive and it's annoying too.

Oh, and cleaner, more easily-accessible tap water. That will reduce the demand for bottled water. As for soft drinks and the like phase out plastic bottles and use cans or glass bottles instead. (and if you didn't already know drinking from plastic bottles can cause breast cancer in men )