Determining the Correct Path to Sustainability, and How to Not Become Overwhelmed in the Process

Before we start, go take a look at this:

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/08/opinion/going-green-but-getting-nowhere.html?_r=2

Go ahead, I'll wait....Done?  Kay.  Good.

There are two reasons for posting this article.  One is that it provides an excellent illustration for why I would like to look at sustainable development policy at a national and international level.  I know this is a course focused mostly on local sustainability, but I still believe that we need to tackle these huge problems in a huge way in order to really make a difference.

The second reason for posting it is that it perfectly illustrates the mountain of obstacles in our way to establishing a sustainable lifestyle.  Yeah, sure, I may be able to do a lot of things to save the world, but in the end, I can't control the other 6+ billion people on the planet and what they do.  No matter how many people we reach, how many lifestyles are altered, there's still billions out there that are actively working towards our destruction, and they don't even know it.  Last week, we talked about how we try and motivate ourselves in the face of such obstacles, but when you look at the big picture like this, it's really, really hard.

Also last week, we calculated our eco-footprints using two different websites.  Depending upon which site you believe, if everyone alive consumed the way I did, we need either 4.3 or 4.5 Earths to sustain everyone.  Wow.  And here I thought I was doing well.  Turns out I'm still part of the problem, not part of the solution.

So what is the solution?  If changing people's actions is so difficult, maybe we just need to reduce the number of people on the planet.  It can be done.  You improve people's access to health care, education, and other basic services, and they should acquire better access to contraception and knowledge about the advantages of having fewer kids.  All of these things will raise people's standard of living.  But I think there's a Catch-22 there.  You raise people's standard of living, and all of a sudden they start wanting more stuff, so even though we might start gradually reducing the number of people alive, those that remain might still use up more resources because they're consuming more.  So in the process of trying to fix one side of the problem, you create the conditions that could allow the other side of the problem to get much, much worse.

So are we doomed to some sort of Malthusian/Darwinian catastrophe where only the strong survive?  (I'm picturing a scene from "The Road"...the movie, because I haven't read the book yet.)  I hope not.  Don't know exactly how we're going to get where we need to be, but maybe this class will help us figure it out.

One thing I do know can be revealed by this second article (if you don't read the whole article, at least watch the video):

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/11/business/at-colleges-the-marketers-are-everywhere.html?_r=1&partner=rss&emc=rss&pagewanted=all

There's so much wrong with this, but I'll just say one thing and be done:  We're not going to get anywhere until we stop socializing our young people to be nothing but good little consumers.  That's all you accomplish when you hold a huge shopping party for young people at Target.  I know rampant consumerism needs to be stopped, but then I read things like this, and I figure we're toast.

(Full disclosure:  I actually used to go to this very same Target from time to time when I lived in Chapel Hill...because, really, where else can you get batteries, underwear, windshield wipers, Clif bars, and cheap DVDs all in one place?)