4 ms·
Not across the globe. Only in rich countries where the current standard of living is unsustainable.
by Scarblac 4y ago
Not across the globe. Only in rich countries where the current standard of living is unsustainable.
- badpun 4y agoI'd be shocked if even one country does it in a meaningful way. It's just so contrary to human nature. I think the only thing that can save us short-term is technology. Inventing and implementing new gizmos is something we're actually good at. Long-term we're probably screwed anyway, because we'll eventually disturb the biological systems on the Earth too much (either via pollution, ocean acidification, killing biodiversity, soil depletion etc.), and they're way too immense and complex for us to fix. People forget that we're part of Earth's ecosystem, but if we disturb it too much we'll be reminded of it either via plagues (we got a taste of it already) and/or famines.
- Scarblac 4y agoWell, it will happen, because the current standard is unsustainable, and that's the definition of the word. The only thing is whether any of it will be in a somewhat controlled, damage limiting fashion, or will it be just one stupid catastrophe after another. I feel new gizmos are generally just more fuel onto the fire of consumerism, and will just speed up the process, not slow it.
- ZeroGravitas 4y agoIt's not the "standard of living" that is unsustainable. The USA wastes a lot more resources to achieve similar standard of living to Europe. And even Europe is putting a lot of effort into policies that simultaneously improve their standard of living and reduce waste or pollution. Saying that "standard of living" is synonymous with "amount of fossil fuels you burn" is standard climate change denier rhetoric. People with efficient cars and well insulated homes have higher standards of living than those who don't.
- badpun 4y ago> The USA wastes a lot more resources to achieve similar standard of living to Europe. It's not similar though. Americans live in way bigger homes and on way bigger plots of land. Streets are wider. Everything is less cramped in general. Also, US has possibly the best health care quality (note I'm not discussing health care _insurance_) in the world. They can also afford more consumer niceties (iPhones, nice cars, foreign vacations etc.). All that extra stuff and quality requires extra fossil fuels and minerals.
- Mildlypolite 4y agoHow comes that you have the "best health care quality" but all the indicators of health care quality like life expectancy is among the worse in the Western world?
- badpun 4y agoBecause its's good (and expensive) that not everyone can afford it?
- Scarblac 4y agoIt's not only about fossil fuels. It's about all the resources that we use more of than is regenerated each year. I think both the US and Europe use too much.
- ZeroGravitas 4y agoCan you be more specific? What are they using too much of? Water, Uranium, Gold, Copper, Sand? Whatever it is, there's almost a certainly a way to use it more efficiently and therefore improve standards of living in Europe, and the rest of the world, at the same time.
- Scarblac 4y agoFossil fuels, fresh water, CO2 budget to limit warming, fertile soil, artificial fertilizer. And things that are mined in general (like metals). They won't run out but as we mine the easy deposits first, the amount of energy it costs to mine a given amount will be forever increasing. E.g., eventually it will cost more energy to mine the materials for a wind mill than the electricity it will generate in its lifetime.