4 ms·
The first paragraph is all you need. Instances of consumerism that are a problem can be dampened through tax or other means, but it's a moot point because envir
by slothtrop 4y ago
The first paragraph is all you need. Instances of consumerism that are a problem can be dampened through tax or other means, but it's a moot point because environmental encroachment scales with demand. If demand is stagnant (because the population is, and has already been lifted out of poverty enough to demand things), then there's no question of sustainability for basically anything, except certain finite resources. No one's going to care about the impact of travel if there 3-4 billion people instead of 8 billion.
- mc32 4y agoEven if we got the world pop to 1960s levels we cannot indefinitely consume and defile the environment. We need to exercise restraint despite our capacity or ability to do things.
- slothtrop 4y agoPeople don't have an infinite capacity for consumption. That's why 1st world countries use immigration policy to boost the GDP (a reflection of consumption). Between gains in efficiency, renewables, etc the "need for restraint" has a ton of legroom if the population simply does not grow. The rise in emissions from the last couple of decades is largely owing to growing demand from China and other countries with an emerging middle class. Vaclav Smil makes this clear in a few of his books (e.g. How The World Really Works), you don't need to rely on conjecture if you just look at the numbers. Since it would be inhumane to demand that the 3rd world not make use of fossil fuels to improve their quality of life (including for instance ammonia for fertilizer), we can expect demand to continue growing. There's no reason to believe that, assuming a stable population, we would be relegated to conditions of asceticism in order to keep the planet habitable.
- Xelynega 4y agoIt's all you "need" from one perspective, but if the topic is "the future our grandchildren deserve" than a criticism of consumerism that seeks to eradicate it is relevant(IMO) and isn't equivalent to minimizing it with "tax and other means".
- slothtrop 4y agoWhy is it relevant? Are you ascribing to consumerism by nature the prospect of an undesirable future?