Comments on: Beware of Sustainable Development

By: 4RH3

4RH3 — Thu, 01 Mar 2012 18:36:00 +0000

Gus,
Sorry you take such a pessimistic-alarmist view of the world. In your ideal, pollution-free, anti-technological society with zero population growth and privation, would you would have us return to our prior state of low life expectancy, disease, food scarcity, poverty? Would we all become walkers, hunters and foragers? I see survivability and sustainability as incompatible, with no logical connection between them. The real world of survivability is one of competition and hard work. Man unlike lesser species, must mold his environment to accomplish his needs and improve his quality of life. Yes, resources can be finite and must be used wisely, but they were put there for our use, and use them we must. We have no certainty of tomorrow’s needs; the resources of today could be substituted and replaced by alternatives and new technologies. To me, the popularized term “sustainability” is an idealistic, unobtainable concept with no practical real world utility, especially where competition and survivability are the rule. It is fundamentally illogical, without historical precedent in a biological or geological sense. As such, sustainability is a fantasy, driving a superstitious doctrine. The real danger to our present and future existence and well-being is not industrialization and technology, but suffocation from fear, tribal group think and environmental extremism.

By: 4RH3

4RH3 — Thu, 01 Mar 2012 16:41:00 +0000

The world does not provide for our survival; WE provide for our own survival through reason, ingenuity and hard work. Man improves his well-being by manipulating his surroundings to fit his needs. Resources in the ground have no value until extracted, modified and utilized to better our lives. This distinguishes us from the other species.
“Sustainable” energy is one in which the quantity, quality, and utility of energy improve over time, becoming more available, more affordable, cleaner and usable over time, all made possible by free will, reason and invention. In a sense, energy users are not borrowing from, but subsidizing the future by continually improving today’s energy, which the future inherits. According to Bradley (Capitalism at Work), human ingenuity is the ultimate resource, not a depletable one but an expandable one, with each invention resulting in new breakthroughs and new horizons. Technology has made possible the highest living standard the world has ever known, and technological advancement is what proved Malthus wrong.

By: Jonathan_Duhamel

Jonathan_Duhamel — Thu, 01 Mar 2012 14:46:00 +0000

For those “glass half empty” commenters who are afraid of using resources, here is a practical example of my contention “Only by maximizing knowledge, technology and wealth today, will we insure that the needs of tomorrow are met.”

When I first worked as an exploration geologist, copper mines were essentially throwing away the oxide copper minerals because they could not be processed through the smelters used to extract copper from sulfide ores. Then a new process was invented: solvent-extraction/electrowinning for extracting copper from oxide mineralization. This process made waste into ore and enlarged the usable copper resource.

By: gus steeves

gus steeves — Thu, 01 Mar 2012 01:06:00 +0000

“Wealth” is FAR more than just finances. REAL wealth is around us, defined by the world’s ability to provide for our survival. Too often, our economic activity and our technology are undermining that and interfering with our ability to understand how it actually works, the kind of “maximiz[ed] knowledge” that really helps us.

Thinking WE have the right to consume as much of a 5+ BILLION year old world as we wish, without regard to the needs of other existent species and future generations is arrogant, not accepting responsibility for such needs.

By: gus steeves

gus steeves — Thu, 01 Mar 2012 00:57:00 +0000

“Resources are meant for human benefit and survivability, rather than sustainability” — What does that even mean? Logically, survival and sustainability go hand in hand, and it IS to
human benefit to promote them b/c they aid our LONG-TERM survival.
Don’t our grandchildren have a right to clean air, water, food, etc?

Likewise, saying, “each generation has left future generations with more resources than existed prior” is manifestly untrue. We HAVE, so far, left much more technology (and more pollutants), but, by definition, using resources leaves less of them for future use. There’s undeniably LESS oil, less clean water, less fertile topsoil, fewer surviving animals in many different species, etc., but many more people. Yes, there’s more food, but it’s of lower nutrient density and far more contaminated with pesticides than ever.

The free market system has its strengths, but long-term thought is not one of them. That’s mostly b/c it defines “efficiency” solely in fiscal terms, and purposely ignores many very real negative impacts on society. The real world does not care how much money someone has.

Sustainable planning doesn’t require dictatorship, as Jonathon strongly implies; it just requires us to be willing to recognize that we have a responsibility to generations beyond ours AND to a world that’s far larger than ourselves. It’s long since time we stopped living as if in a bubble.

By: Jonathan_Duhamel

Jonathan_Duhamel — Wed, 29 Feb 2012 22:35:00 +0000

Mr. Stewart, the term “uprightage” is a screen name for one of the commenters. I did not make it up. Seems you are wrong about that too.

By: Will Stewart

Will Stewart — Wed, 29 Feb 2012 18:22:00 +0000

So you refer to those who you disagree with as “upright apes”? Odd that the Tuscon Citizen allows you to continue to publish. Then again…

By: Will Stewart

Will Stewart — Wed, 29 Feb 2012 18:20:00 +0000

Jonathon, that vague handwaving answer does not address the question. We are not only drawing down our oil reserves, we are polluting the air, water, and ground with unsustainable practices. We can indeed apply new technology and knowledge to improving fuel efficiency, walkable urban development, better mass transit, clean power sources, healthier agriculture practices, etc. There are a number of vested interests that want to keep us hooked on their particular addiction, however, and make us believe it is “The American Way of Life” instead of lifestyle choices. Remember, it was George W. Bush who said, “America is addicted to oil”.

By: Will Stewart

Will Stewart — Wed, 29 Feb 2012 17:59:00 +0000

One reason “America is addicted to oil” as GWB put it in his 2006 State of the Union Address revolves around sprawl. The farther we have to drive to commute, shop, run errands, school, etc, the more gas we use, and the less likely we are to walk or bike.

I want to leave a nation that is not a slave to oil prices (which will continue to rise due to the peaking of global production), so I heartily support efforts to create a more sustainable society. Who would be against having a viable future for our children, unless it is land speculators wanting to cash in on land in the exurbs? I have no stomach for ensuring a profit on their poor choice of investment gambling.

By: Jonathan_Duhamel

Jonathan_Duhamel — Wed, 29 Feb 2012 14:07:00 +0000

Seth, the answer is in the post:”Only by maximizing knowledge, technology and wealth today, will we insure that the needs of tomorrow are met.” Your point about national debt is a good one.