Read on Twitter
The question of population has to be discussed more freely. It's just a fact that more humans means less of everything else. The question I also wonder - at current population levels - if we were to live "one planet" lifestyles - could we stop with the plunder of resources?
The answer to that question is not easily.
Calculations that I have researched suggest that even if the entire planet were to live more simply, let's say, closer to what the indigenous people do, we would still be stretching the capacity for planetary health.
Calculations that I have researched suggest that even if the entire planet were to live more simply, let's say, closer to what the indigenous people do, we would still be stretching the capacity for planetary health.
So then what we need to be doing - is asking these questions.
If we all want to "raise living standards" - at least in the concept of what the industrialised and so called civilisation has come to understand, then it seems clear that we have to accept more extinction
If we all want to "raise living standards" - at least in the concept of what the industrialised and so called civilisation has come to understand, then it seems clear that we have to accept more extinction
And less green space, less wilderness, etc.
That is the trade off.
That is the trade off.
But the way forward, as I see it at the moment (although I am always open to rethinking this, and questioning solutions, and paradigms) is that we have to do two things:
1. Scale back drastically (give up cars, planes, A/C on all day, meat/fish.
2. Level off population growth
1. Scale back drastically (give up cars, planes, A/C on all day, meat/fish.
2. Level off population growth
On the second point - this is always a tricky and contentious issue. But let's say we had a global one child per family policy - over time, we would reduce the population back to more equitable levels.
Because ultimately, more and more humankind, without sharing the earth and leaving space for other creatures and biota, means a depleted, less rich existence. More humans, as it stands, means more ecocide.
Sorry to put this in such bald terms. Of course I recognise the massive difference in a child born say in Chad, to one born in UAE, or Australia. And that goes back to the first point - scaling back - and massively.
So I guess we will have to make a choice - as the dominant species on the planet. Do we want total control of everything, and not to share? Or do we want a world where we share the planet with the magical animal kingdom, the astonishingly beautiful flora and fauna.
If we do, there will need to be some very tough conversations.
This won't be easy - and this is why politicians have avoided the hot potato. Who is going to tell the truth?
This won't be easy - and this is why politicians have avoided the hot potato. Who is going to tell the truth?
Who is going to put their head above the parapit and tell us that we need to totally change our civilization as we know it?
Switching oil for lithium/nickel/copper etc isn't a "solution" to ecocide. It's a solution, maybe, for carbon emissions. But that's not actually so clearcut. If we degrade further our remaining ecosystems, then we may be making mother earth less able to cope with CO2
So anyway, those are some thoughts for the day! Time to logout!
