Message-ID: <s2dcbe03.020@crs.loc.gov> Date: Wed, 15 Jan 1997 11:17:31 -0500 From: Jonathan Sanford <mailto:JSANFORD@CRS.LOC.GOV> Subject: Re: A high standard of living and a healthy society -Reply To: Multiple recipients of list DEVEL-L <mailto:DEVEL-L@AMERICAN.EDU>
Dear Jay,You say "Jon, you still don't get it. The scientific consensus is that present level of world consumption is "unsustainable". Reducing the level of world consumption IS attainable -- it WILL be attained. It doesn't make any difference whether it is moral or not, it doesn't make any difference whether we like it or not -- it is inevitable."
Well, maybe. But I don't think we need to lead the cheers and wax enthusiastic. A great die-off of humanity in order to reduce the world human population down to a presumed "sustainable' level is not something to be welcomed.
After all, we don't really know what that "sustainable" level might be. There is no scientific consensus on that point, notwithstanding your claims. Do we reduce our use of minerals down to the "sustainable" level--in other words, to the point where our current use is supplied solely from recycling of existing stock? Any other use would require a reduction in the finite supply of stuff in the ground. You seem to think that is a crime against nature. Alternatively, should we look more diligently and use existing supplies more efficiently, in order to stretch them out? If prices increase in response to scarcity, will that stretch out the stock of "finite" materials? Lots of developing countries can't find enough customers now for their raw material output. Their relative prices haven't risen as rapidly as the relative prices they pay for manufactured goods. What does that say about resource scarcity?
What about energy supplies? If we stop using fossil fuels for energy, then we have to use renewable sources. Environmentalists object to the construction of dams, so that seems to eliminate massive resort to hydropower. Trees, methane, alcohol, etc. are a possibility. But none of these stop the generation of carbon dioxide. Exactly how much does the world population have to be reduced in order to get the carbon dioxide level in the atmosphere down to "sustainable" levels? Do you know? Does the level have to be reduced, or are there things we could do with increased vegetation and protection of natural sinks to obviate the problem? And even if we have to reduce our production of carbon dioxide (and other products of combustion) down to a certain lower level, how fast must it be done and how much time do we have to adjust? One, two, ten generations before we get to some irrevocable point as far as "sustainability" is concerned? The time schedule can make a big difference.
Maybe I don't "get" it. Maybe we all are living in a fools paradise and massive death is just around the corner because of exhaustion of the raw material base. You seem to imply this through the sources you cite. I think the problem is open to remedy and is much less stark than you suggest. In any case, I don't think it is something to be welcomed. It won't just be anonymous people living in obscure lands who are hurt. Those folks will be someone's mother or brother, dear to them and an ethical concern to us. Might even be yours or mine.
Jon Sanford