Implementing Democracy 1.01 in Iran

[9th Engineer]

Ali, could you be a bit more specific in what resources you are refering to, and the how dire you think the condition is of the most pressing cases. The reason I would ask is because I think I might agree with you, but you jump around to much for me to pinpoint exactly what sort of consumption you really mean. You're references to 'comfort' are too vauge for me to tell if you mean fuel, food, timber, metals, or are just lumping everything into one giant doomsday senario. Whatever you are refering to you seem to think its depletetion will actively kill us off rather than just making us drive tiny cars or put on an extra sweater.

[Aliantha]

Clodd, while it's true that everything we began with is still here in some form or another, I don't think the gasses we create via pollution are going to be of any use to anyone in the future. I don't think the plastic products modern society is so fond of will be of any use to anyone other than as landfill. In theory your argument might work, but in reality, you must acknowledge that we are not using our resources in a sustainable manner, and even if we do start right now, in all likelihood we will not be able to create enough new technologies to counteract the damage done during the 20th century.

9th...I'm talking about non renewable resources such as fossil fuels, metals and minerals. I'm also talking about environments such as rainforests and rivers. The things we destroy during the process of living which we will not be able to replace during our lifetimes nor those of our children or grandchildren. When it all comes down to it, if we destroy all of our natural environments, then the simple process of cleaning our air will not occur. So to answer you question, while I don't necessarily believe we're actively killing ourselves off, I think the chain reaction in place because of our lifestyle is/will.

[Undertoad]

My grandparents lived in New Hampshire, which is a very foresty sort of area.

When the new world started came to the US, New Hampshire was something like 97% forest.

By the early part of this century it was more like 50% as wood was the main fuel and main constuction material used to build the new world.

Today it is like 90%.

The things we destroy during the process of living which we will not be able to replace during our lifetimes nor those of our children or grandchildren.

The things we create during the process of living will give our children and grandchildren wealth, knowledge, and the ability to address and overcome problems. The nature of progress is that first we consume what we have to - then we become productive - then we consume less raw materials per head. It's inevitable because productivity literally means doing more things with less goods. Although you can't see it, most knowledge workers in a productive economy are trying to figure out how to get more out of less. From the marketers who package less to be more, to the engineers who try to figure out an easier and cheaper way to manufacture, to the cost accountants who try to figure out what the cost per item exactly is so it can be reduced.

There are environmental issues, no question about it, but if we work in a market-friendly way these things can be addressed without seriously reducing overall wealth or lifestyle.

[headsplice]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

There are environmental issues, no question about it, but if we work in a market-friendly way these things can be addressed without seriously reducing overall wealth or lifestyle.

That's based on the assumption that people aren't greedy bastards that will do anything they're allowed to (and sometimes that they aren't) to get ahead in the game. Further, it's based on the premise that the people in power are okay with change and will allow market forces to, potentially, push them out of power.

[Undertoad]

No solution will work unless it works with and not against market forces. Government, in order to be effective, has to paddle with the current to accomplish what it needs to accomplish.

This means using tools like tax credits, incentives, taxation based on usage such as BTU tax, deed restrictions, effective enforcement of environmental laws, pollution licenses, citizen lawsuits, careful use of public land. As opposed to brute-force approaches like treaties, eminent domain, zero tolerance.

The economics of the matter don't disappear because government gets involved. The power behind the matter is tied to the economics.

[headsplice]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

No solution will work unless it works with and not against market forces. Government, in order to be effective, has to paddle with the current to accomplish what it needs to accomplish.

This means using tools like tax credits, incentives, taxation based on usage such as BTU tax, deed restrictions, effective enforcement of environmental laws, pollution licenses, citizen lawsuits, careful use of public land. As opposed to brute-force approaches like treaties, eminent domain, zero tolerance.

The economics of the matter don't disappear because government gets involved. The power behind the matter is tied to the economics.

I misread what you were trying to get across. My apologies.

[Undertoad]

My fault for using a loaded term like market-friendly without mentioning any details.

[Aliantha]

UT...for the sake of future generations I wish your fantasy had a hope of being a reality. Unfortunately, it's highly unlikely, but you never know.

[Undertoad]

My message about the New Hampshire forests remains in my head as we discuss global warming. I found a series of images of dioramas that show the basic history of New England forest, exactly what I was talking about.

http://harvardforest.fas.harvard.edu...landscape.html

Because the images may go away, and because people won't follow the link, I've saved them and will put them up here.

Think about it: this is a cycle that is so long, we don't see it in one lifetime. The images below cover 15 generations. We tore the New England forest down not once, but twice, because we needed to go periods of high consumption during rapid growth.

Then we learned to do more with less. We learned to use better fuels, better building materials, and how to move food from better farmlands. Then we learned a cultural practice of maintaining and not overconsuming the land.

93% of New England forest land is on private property. But the forests have returned. This forest was not sustainable in 1850. Today it is.


1700: Pre-settlement


1740: Early sporadic settlement


1830-1880: 70% deforestation for agriculture and fuel


1850-19??: Abandonment of farmland


1910: White pines encroach on abandoned farmland


1915: Cutting of white pines lead to hardwood succession


1930: Hardwood forest grows vigorously


2000: Mature forest succeeds despite new dense population

[glatt]

The story of the forests in New Hampsire is a fascinating one. I remember reading a book in college for a human ecology class called "Changes In The Land" that covered this topic in detail. It was my favorite book in college. I need to dig it out of the basement and re-read it.

But the story of a renewable resource like a forest doesn't apply to mineral and oil deposits. Those materials may be renewable in a geological time frame, but not in a human time frame. Once we use them, they will be gone.

[Pangloss62]

Changes In The Land is a classic. Cronon wrote most of that book as his master's thesis!

He's still considered a bit controversial because he keeps insisting that there is no "real" separation between the natural and the unnatural, and that the idea of "wilderness" is highly problematic and not helpful when discussing policies for land management.