19 November 2007
Unsustainable
Posted by Carleton Schade under: Carrying Capacity; Dieback; Future; Overshoot; Sustainability .
Sustainable, by definition, means that one’s behavior can be sustained indefinitely. If there were only four million people on the earth, they could probably cut down as many trees, clear as much land as they wished, use as many resources and produce as much waste as they desired. This is, of course, ignoring the moral argument. The immediate vicinity would be eventually destroyed, and humans would move on to another spot, behaving similarly. Meanwhile, the destroyed area would recuperate and become vibrant again. This would be sustainable behavior, and it is basically what Paleolithic and early Neolithic (early farmers) did. From our individual perspective, the earth is big and could likely sustain this sort of lifestyle indefinitely.
However, with 1000 times that number, soon to be 2000 times, such Neolithic conduct is not sustainable. Every indicator–deforestation, overfishing, oceanic acidity, biodiversity loss (1,2), desertification, water drawdown, fossil fuel resources, global warming, etc–suggests that the earth’s recuperative powers have already been overtaxed. That is, our behaviors are unsustainable. By definition, this means that the earth cannot continue to support present and projected human consumption indefinitely. And since global industries are primed to produce more than ever, it will get worse for quite a while before it gets better.
Many solutions have been proposed, and many of them are thoughtful, informed, and likely to be part of future sustainable societies. They are unlikely to be part of any large movement in the near future, however. Reading trend lines (albeit in a linear way), the destruction to earth’s life support systems is accelerating far faster than our behaviors are changing. Water, land and energy (in a easily usable form, namely oil) are diminishing so rapidly–so unsustainably–that a crash is imminent. Global warming has deservingly gotten a lot of attention, as has peak oil, mainly because the world’s wealthy billion people do not want to give up their high consumption lifestyles. However, as big a threat to humanity–at least in the timespans of decades–is the desertification/water scarcity issue. Numerous articles in the academic peer-reviewed journals have been documenting a disaster-in-the-making, threatening in the necessarily couched language of academia to a Malthusian dieback of humanity. Hundreds of millions, even billions, could die the horrific deaths of starvation and disease in the coming century. It is this event, perhaps more than any other, that will propel humanity into true sustainable action.
3 Comments so far...
Jeff Selin Says:
25 November 2007 at 2:03 am.
My Web Dude
Arron Klump
In the Loft Studios
A Multimedia Design Company
Including Audio, Video and Web
360.690.6432
Jeff Selin Says:
28 November 2007 at 10:19 pm.
Thanks for this post, CS. Curious if you’ve considered sustainability with regards to levels of environments and how they are ultimately (dis)connected? For instance, working diligently to maintain sustainability in my backyard, I eventually hit the wall at my neighbors (town, state, country, hemisphere, world). Can smaller systems truly be sustainable? Here’s to keeping an eye on the 30,000-foot-view.