Are we on the brink of an ecological “Great Disruption”? Paul Gilding thinks so, reports Thomas Friedman.
Gilding cites the work of the Global Footprint Network, an alliance of scientists, which calculates how many “planet Earths” we need to sustain our current growth rates. G.F.N. measures how much land and water area we need to produce the resources we consume and absorb our waste, using prevailing technology. On the whole, says G.F.N., we are currently growing at a rate that is using up the Earth’s resources far faster than they can be sustainably replenished, so we are eating into the future. Right now, global growth is using about 1.5 Earths. “Having only one planet makes this a rather significant problem,” says Gilding.
Sounds ominous. Do we need to revisit our undergirding assumptions about what makes for healthy economic life? What are your thoughts?
June 8th, 2011 | 8:19 pm | #1
It’s the same type of problem that we have with federal spending in the U.S. (Social Security et. al.) — the status quo is not sustainable. So the longer we wait, the fewer our options and the harder our choices will be. Still, some are not convinced the problem is as severe as is claimed, and some simply don’t care.
June 9th, 2011 | 2:41 pm | #2
This is Thomas Malthus, part 100.
The presence of Thomas Friedman in this discussion is also a non-starter. It’s good to see that he took a break from his weekly love songs to China (and their oh-so-efficient authoritarianism) to write about something else that he can show his complete banality about.
June 9th, 2011 | 5:44 pm | #3
Tried posting a comment, but I think it had too many links :(
June 14th, 2011 | 11:12 am | #4
There’s good reason to believe that fears over excessive population growth and the drain on our natural resources are overblown or unfounded. See chapter 8 of Jay Richards’ Money, Greed, God. Richards discusses, among other things, the mitigating factors of human creativity/ingenuity and the increasing costliness of scarce resources as an incentive to pursue/develop alternatives.
June 16th, 2011 | 10:00 am | #5
I am not a doomsayer. But for Christians at least, there are two practical steps we can take that are easy, healthful, and morally good on several levels:
(1) We need to eat less. Specifically, we need to eat less meat. Even more specifically, we need to eat less pork. Visit a modern pig factory if you want some incentive.
(2) Why do many Christians seem to think that looking at alternative fuel sources is anti-Christian? Surely by now use of fossil fuels should have gone the way of use of whale oil to light the house.
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact