The unexceptional truth

[matrixmann]

"Wanting to protect the world climate, you have to face one important fact: Economic growth (in the Western world) still and trying to only stop the man-made destruction of nature are two things which don't fit together. They're paths running into opposite directions.
To really turn back the cogs of time in order to spare yourself and future generations the worst means you have to go back towards the living standard of the 70s of the wealthy nations and the world population has to halve at least, if you want every human to have the same wealthy living standard. Nothing going in there anymore with "I want my lovely two kids per relationship" - NO! To say it really evil: At best you even die before you get 40, and at best you didn't leave behind a child until then.
That's how drastic it is.
And the healthier people want to be personally, the less people can walk on earth enjoying it as their lifestyle.
You ask why the animals die out and keep disappearing? Think for a minute: Who conquered the living space that was taken away from them? Who occupies the space they lived in before? Seven and a half billion answers are walking out there. Human species took that territory, spreading like a virus. Where humans live, barely other animals live in anymore.
So... you get it what even more "growth" would mean for the environment, for the nature of this planet?"

Comments

[onb2017.livejournal.com]

True about progress and going back to feudalism and digging in dirt with hoes. It is not only impractical but impossible at this point. Luckily. But the devastation is happening not as much due to the progress but rather because of irrational and ineffective methods that free market employs. I am writing an article about fruit and vegetables as we speak for tomorrow and you know that tons of food is produced and then destroyed for various reasons for example or produce is grown for its looks to sell it quickly at the expense of nutrition. Big crops are grown with the use of pesticides and pests adapt to them but the beneficial organisms die. Bees, for instance. And again tons of produce is being destroyed. Or production of soft drinks: to produce 1 litter of Pepsi and such requires 20+ litters of water. Why? Because it was marketed to the consumers but essentially is not needed etc. 7 billion population is not a problem at all if it is done rationally without the profit in mind as a main concern.

[matrixmann]

Hm, I don't think it's only reducible to the methods. The methods play a huge role, but this wasn't my intention here.

Just saying: I may deem it not that worth much to speak it out openly that affluent society and an environmentally-friendly life are two contradicting things, but maybe that's not so worthless at all to mention. Some people may still start with that status of knowledge naively believing that their current (Western) lifestyle requires no cuts or anything from their side in order to contribute their useful share to soothing the climate issue.
But that is complete bullshit. If you don't change anything about your lifestyle, how do you think anything's supposed to get better?
And so... there is one good reason to speak that ugly truth out as a reminder. It has to be as drastic as that, uncovered and not whitewashed so that it sounds more comfortable, less brutal than it really is.
Because, simply, it is as rock-hard as that.