This little globe.

I'm not that political, or environmental. But i understand that these are the things that will most likely effect if this world goes on, or at the least if we as a species survive much longer on it.

So i ask you all, what do you think needs to be done to sort out our planet. And i mean real answers that you yourself would or do actually do.

I think we all need to read 1984 by George Orwell and realise that it's happening right now...and yes, our only hope lies in the prols.

Ah... the proles. I believe in sustainability. I am studying Environmental Policy, and though I am just a first year student, I think I comprehend the political and environmental difficulties our globe is encountering at the moment. I think I am the wrong person to ask because I am a hardcore environmentalist who would argue for a zero-growth policy.
I am a great fan of Orwellian literature, and I am impressed by the accuracy of his prophecies. In any case, I must get ready for lectures. If you are interested in reading my far-fetched hardcore opinions, I shall certainly express them later.
Au revoir.

Kevin, are you perchance, familiar with the literature of G Hardin or Meadows et al.? Your title reminds me of "Limits to Growth" published by the Club of Rome, so I was just wondering. Further, the topic you brought about is very similar to those discusses in these books.

Bob Shank,

I am beginning to think that you share the same love for the environment that I have. At one point, I sincerelt thought that humankind was the cause for all troubles in this most beautiful world: look merely at an urbanised city and tell me truthfully that you believe it to be beautiful. I think you will be unable to do so. Alternatively, look at agricultural land... What is it?

However, God is too great to have committed such a miserable mistake. Some of the most important religions of the world place humankind at the hierarchy of the Creation, but I think that is all mere speculation based on our desire to think of ourselves as the centre of the universe. Yet, we must stop and think, if humanity is any different from any of the other species, what is it? Our ability to think? Our ability to communicate? No, our ability to ponder about the purpose of life.

I sincerely believe that humanity has the potential to create a real utopia, but the current growth patterns and the inherent competitive quality of men have compelled them to exploit resources without any considerations. When they fully acknowledge the importance of sustainability for their own survival, perhaps we will be in the right way to achieving utopia.

This is just an opinion by an 18-year old, and I hope it makes this poetry community think a bit.

Cheers.

HansRik (nom de plume)

Nice post Hans.

Lets take God out of the picture on this one shall we, maybe a God created this world but it's only human being who are going to fix it.

I too see the potentiallity for a Utopian world, balanced, equal and peaceful. Unfortunately something drastic is going to have to happen...like a massive world war or some planet threatening occurance. At present the Governments of the world aren't interested in Utopia...though they of course know it is possible.

I see amazingly advanced technological cities of great wonder and beauty...but also ecological balance...with huge parks and wildlife all around and through it. People will jobshare and only work part time to contribute to society what they get out. Things like clothes will be mass produced in factories to be stylish but without lable or tag. Food will be grown organically by everyone in additional to farmers...birth rates will be understood by everyone...and thus controlled....the sun and air and water will be our chief power source.

Crime will vanish as no one will want for anything....Organised religion will be abolished, as it will serve no purpose in a society free from fear and oppression...to be replaced by personal faiths of a non denonminational variety.

The community spirit will be a worldwide feeling...and we can all just be totally excellent to each other...*guitar wails*

You may say that i'm a dreamer....

Kevin,

I am too much of a dreamer too. Now, basing our knowledge on mere factual evidence and literature, and without considering the role of God and idealism, we come to different conclusions.

The general pattern of consumption of the developed countries indicates that resources will ve fully exhausted within few years. That is, if we do not find any resources to compensate for this loss. However, one must understand that "resources" as such are human constructs. It is humankind which gives a value to X or Y material. For instance, I do not give a high value to, say, a chapstick because I never feel the need to use it. Some others, on the contrary, give such resources a higher value. For this reason, revisionists such as Lomborg claim that we need not worry about resource exhaustion as future generations will find new technology and new economic values.

The pessimist literature considers current values and consumption patterns to predict future relationships, but this is not an entirely reliable analysis. Firstly, it is impossible to know how much of the resource base will be available for use in the future. Furthermore, economic valuations tend to differ with time: consider bauxite which gained its value only recently, or coal which has lost its value because of its environmentally degrading qualities. Another problem arises when considering the current economic value of a given resource, namely, intrinsic valuation. Some individuals give valuation to the fact that a given environmental asset exists. How to evaluate this has been a concern for environmental economists. Some suggest that WTP (Willingness to Pay) can give an accurate measure of this valuation. For example, I may be willing to pay 10,000 pounds sterling to conserve a natural site, whereas a company is only willing to pay 5,000 (because costs of production cannot be met if they pay more.) In this manner, I can ensure the site is protected. WTP varies considerably according to a number of causes, but mainly, some individuals are satisfied to know that a given species or asset is still alive, for example, and so their WTP is high.

A number of criticisms to this approach have been posed. The most interesting one states that humanity is unpredictable and not wholly reliable. Thus, they might claim to be willing to pay X amount of currency for environmental conservation, but in reality they only give half of it, or even less.

Another economic argument is that as incomes rise, people want to have better standards of living and thus pay more to eliminate pollutants. The Environmental Kuznets Curve (EKC) shows the relationship between income and environmental degradation. As expected, growth results in high rates of degradation until a maximum point is reached (for sulphur dioxide, it is estimated at about $5,000 per capita) and after this point, money is used to reduce environmental damage, so environmental degradation decreases. Pearce et al. suggest that an exhaustive economic analysis in developed countries has shown that thi is false, for it becomes economically detrimental to spend resources in the environment. Thus, they argue, countries should avoid economic growth, based in the Western model, in the first place.

Sustainability can none the less be achieved through other means.