Environment & Energy
Related: About this forumTime to Grow Up Into a Living Earth Economy
The current political chaos in the United States is a product of the failure of our economic system to fulfill the promise of the American dream: That each new generation will enjoy abundance beyond that of their parents. What most people experience instead is increasing insecurity and declining opportunity.
People know something is badly wrong. Uncertain as to what or why, they are desperate for answers. Who is responsible? What can we do?
Our current situation is ripe for the blame game. Blame immigrants. Blame Obama. Or blame scofflaw bankers.
Years ago when I was a business school student, our professors taught us that a recurring problem is a symptom of a system failure. Dont focus on treating the symptom, they told us, step back and look upstream to identify the source. A lack of jobs, desperate immigrants, and even scofflaw bankers are symptoms of a much deeper problem.
We depend for our living on an economic system that is on a path to producing the sixth mass extinction, reducing billions of humans to a desperate struggle for survival, and driving the collapse of any semblance of a civilized social order. The very survival of the human species may be in question.
Those who are privileged to have a voice in the current system are reluctant to face the reality because the implications are terrifying. One of those implications is the necessity of relinquishing our privilege in favor of greater equality and true democracy.
SNIP
The current failed system is a collective human creation based on human choices made over thousands of years in response to the unfolding circumstances of history. In the big picture, these choices reflect three foundational assumptions:
1. It is our human right to dominate nature.
2. Money is wealth and therefore a suitable object of sacred veneration.
3. Social order depends on institutions that centralize power in the hands of the few to rule over the rest of us so long as these institutions are subject to the discipline of the market and/or a system of popular elections.
If we step back and examine these assumptions, most of us immediately recognize profound fallacies:
1. Our human existence depends on the health of nature and the systems by which Earths community of life self-organizes to maintain the conditions essential to the existence of all life.
2. Real wealth is living wealththose things with real intrinsic value, beginning with the land we depend on to grow our food and the water we depend on to quench our thirst. Money is useful in facilitating the exchange of things of real value but has no intrinsic value in itself
3. Life exists only in living communities that self-organize in response to diverse and ever-changing local conditions to create and maintain the conditions essential to their own existence. There is no equivalent in nature of the centralized command-and-control structures we humans currently favor. That is because they block the communitys ability to self-organize in response to the ever-changing local needs and circumstances characteristic of any living system.
In the midst of daily life, we rarely step back to confront these contradictions.................. more
http://www.yesmagazine.org/new-economy/time-to-grow-up-into-a-living-earth-economy-20160419
Fast Walker 52
(7,723 posts)and a major societal organization.
I'm sure President Hillary will help bring that upon us.
GliderGuider
(21,088 posts)I also respect Bill Rees and Mathis Wackernagel, who are the creators of the "Ecological Footprint" concept. Their work is the source of Korten's statement that "We humans now consume at a rate 1.6 times what Earth can sustain."
However, I'm extremely skeptical of the Ecological Footprint conclusion, for a very simple reason.
Rees and Wackernagel claim that the global footprint was 1.0 in 1970. In other words, in 1970 we only needed one planet Earth to provide all our required services. Today, this number is 1.6 planets.
This seems a bizarre claim, given that since 1970 the world's population has doubled, its energy use has increased 2.5 times, and the world's constant-dollar GDP has gone up over 3.5 times. This implies that their numbers seriously underestimate the problem - we probably need between 2 and 3.5 planets to sustain our activities.
The underestimate is probably due to the assumptions they make in their calculations - the same assumptions that gave them the conclusion that we were at a 1-planet level in 1970. From the research I've done, it seems highly likely that we passed the 1-planet level earlier than that.
If we actually passed the 1-planet point in 1950, we would need 6 (±3) planets to sustain today's level of human activity, based on the increase since then in our population, overall energy consumption and world GDP.
If we passed that point in 1900 - which I think is more realistic - we now need 15 (±10) planets to sustain us over the long haul.
Rees and Wackernagel's estimate of 1.6 understates the depth of the hole we're in by between 75% and 800%. The value you choose depends on how strict your definition of sustainability is.
In the end, it doesn't matter much though. Fucked is fucked.
Nihil
(13,508 posts)And this point made me stop dead to re-read it:
> Wealth has become so concentrated that the worlds 62 richest billionaires
> now own as much as the poorest half of humanity3.5 billion people ...