I really appreciate seeing an argument like this laid out. It was an engaging read. That said, I have a number of frustrations with all these kinds of arguments.
We can't accurately measure all these things. We're better at some than others, but we ultimately don't know what sustainable really means in each context. Specifics like number of goats in Mongolia? Okay, that seems pretty accurate. Anthropomorphic climate change will...wait, what will it do? It won't destroy our species. It won't kill massive numbers of people (unless we idiotically do nothing to mitigate local effects). It will...probably make a lot of things harder for us -- almost certainly more severely for poorer countries than for richer. We have already revised the numbers and the effects multiple times. I don't doubt we will again. And all the predictions are "if we do nothing" or "if our technology / culture looks the same in 50 years as it does now." They won't look the same in 50 years.
This is not an argument to do nothing. This is an argument to make improvements! Some improvements will be along the lines of reducing overproduction / overconsumption. Some will be to mitigate the effects of our consumption. Some will be to change from less efficient to more efficient processes. It will be a *lot* of incremental improvements in all of these, and in 50 years, we will still be here and our quality of life will have yet again improved (or at least our living standards will...quality of life is probably a separate issue). Note that it's still important *to ensure we are making these improvements!* But that is a very far cry from the crisis that it is *very* clear various environmental activists wish to use to push their preferred ideas (e.g., wind and solar, electric cars, "sustainable" products, etc.).
If that sounds complacent, well, maybe it is.
For what it's worth, one of my simple ideas to help combat some of our overconsumption and overproduction (not a silver bullet by any means): produce better stuff and don't throw things away. Stop making so much stuff that is disposable. Make things high quality that will last, charge more for them (because they will often cost more), and provide assistance to the poorest among us who cannot afford stuff to get more expensive.
This is a great kickoff discussion. What I think is most useful in all of this was an idea established first in my mind by Neal Stephenson in his book 'The Diamond Age'. In this book he described the Neo Victorians as primarily wealth 'equity lords' who refused all consumer goods. Instead they lived completely 'sustainably' within the perimeters of their estates. If they wanted transportation, they rode horses. Which means they hired people to tend horses and grow the food that horses consumed. Everything they used was handmade and all of the craftsmen who made those things lived on their estate. Meanwhile all of the peasants outside lived in habitations that were machine built.
Thus the world had two sides, those who hired, fed and cared for people and those who were serviced, housed and educated by machines manufactured by global corporations. In this regard, all environmental discussions are about how enlightened people are urging us to split the difference. But what I focus in on is the sort of civility required of 'equity lords' to manage, house and care for the people who directly produce for their estates. You cannot bullshit the people who cook and serve your food.
The ability to mass a political movement that will regulate producers of consumer goods to go halfsies is, I think, wishful thinking. In short of that, I think the smartest thing to do is to understand (no mean feat) the development of the heavy machinery of every industry that produces those goods and determine if *shortcuts are even possible*. If you cannot think of what you desire as a consumer in terms of the costs of retooling factories, then you're really giving all power to rhetorical persuasion, which we absolutely know can and will be false. But you can always (given proper knowledge) test the quality of steel.
BTW. My favorite company in this regard is American Giant. See how they have bucked the industry trend. They are transparent about this on their website.
Thank you for this. I’ve been saying for years (to no one who cares) that we should be calculating the true cost of products and services, including solar and wind energy, from cradle to grave. That calculation should include the intangible moral costs as well.
Then there is the other issue of the cost to people’s well-being for being able to shop online 24/7—human sustainably. Too many of my conversations are about what people have just bought or are thinking about buying. As much as I try to shield myself from this behavior, I get caught up in it myself.
I really appreciate seeing an argument like this laid out. It was an engaging read. That said, I have a number of frustrations with all these kinds of arguments.
We can't accurately measure all these things. We're better at some than others, but we ultimately don't know what sustainable really means in each context. Specifics like number of goats in Mongolia? Okay, that seems pretty accurate. Anthropomorphic climate change will...wait, what will it do? It won't destroy our species. It won't kill massive numbers of people (unless we idiotically do nothing to mitigate local effects). It will...probably make a lot of things harder for us -- almost certainly more severely for poorer countries than for richer. We have already revised the numbers and the effects multiple times. I don't doubt we will again. And all the predictions are "if we do nothing" or "if our technology / culture looks the same in 50 years as it does now." They won't look the same in 50 years.
This is not an argument to do nothing. This is an argument to make improvements! Some improvements will be along the lines of reducing overproduction / overconsumption. Some will be to mitigate the effects of our consumption. Some will be to change from less efficient to more efficient processes. It will be a *lot* of incremental improvements in all of these, and in 50 years, we will still be here and our quality of life will have yet again improved (or at least our living standards will...quality of life is probably a separate issue). Note that it's still important *to ensure we are making these improvements!* But that is a very far cry from the crisis that it is *very* clear various environmental activists wish to use to push their preferred ideas (e.g., wind and solar, electric cars, "sustainable" products, etc.).
If that sounds complacent, well, maybe it is.
For what it's worth, one of my simple ideas to help combat some of our overconsumption and overproduction (not a silver bullet by any means): produce better stuff and don't throw things away. Stop making so much stuff that is disposable. Make things high quality that will last, charge more for them (because they will often cost more), and provide assistance to the poorest among us who cannot afford stuff to get more expensive.
This is a great kickoff discussion. What I think is most useful in all of this was an idea established first in my mind by Neal Stephenson in his book 'The Diamond Age'. In this book he described the Neo Victorians as primarily wealth 'equity lords' who refused all consumer goods. Instead they lived completely 'sustainably' within the perimeters of their estates. If they wanted transportation, they rode horses. Which means they hired people to tend horses and grow the food that horses consumed. Everything they used was handmade and all of the craftsmen who made those things lived on their estate. Meanwhile all of the peasants outside lived in habitations that were machine built.
Thus the world had two sides, those who hired, fed and cared for people and those who were serviced, housed and educated by machines manufactured by global corporations. In this regard, all environmental discussions are about how enlightened people are urging us to split the difference. But what I focus in on is the sort of civility required of 'equity lords' to manage, house and care for the people who directly produce for their estates. You cannot bullshit the people who cook and serve your food.
The ability to mass a political movement that will regulate producers of consumer goods to go halfsies is, I think, wishful thinking. In short of that, I think the smartest thing to do is to understand (no mean feat) the development of the heavy machinery of every industry that produces those goods and determine if *shortcuts are even possible*. If you cannot think of what you desire as a consumer in terms of the costs of retooling factories, then you're really giving all power to rhetorical persuasion, which we absolutely know can and will be false. But you can always (given proper knowledge) test the quality of steel.
BTW. My favorite company in this regard is American Giant. See how they have bucked the industry trend. They are transparent about this on their website.
Thank you for this. I’ve been saying for years (to no one who cares) that we should be calculating the true cost of products and services, including solar and wind energy, from cradle to grave. That calculation should include the intangible moral costs as well.
Then there is the other issue of the cost to people’s well-being for being able to shop online 24/7—human sustainably. Too many of my conversations are about what people have just bought or are thinking about buying. As much as I try to shield myself from this behavior, I get caught up in it myself.
I am looking forward to future posts.