How do people think that change will take place....?

[bloom]

How do people think that change will take place if they don't want the government requiring it and they don't want to take the initiative on their own?

It could be different people. One - the nanny-state whiners - who don't want anything imposed on them in the form of restrictive laws. The other - those who are offended if people suggest that we the people can make a difference by turning down the thermostat/consuming less energy and not eating meat/which is equivalent of giving up a car - and expecting others who are conscious beings to get on board.

I have a feeling it's the same people. People who are not interested in considering the impacts of their behavior which could be modified to have less of an impact on the world.

When you take the world as a whole - and we know the global warming/extinctions problems. And we know that the earth cannot support 6 billion with the American lifestyle. We could say that those other people should do something. But it's the American lifestyle where we consume 25% of the energy with 5% of the world's population that's a problem. So it stands to reason that Americans should work toward having a less consumptive lifestyle. How do people see that as happening?

By choice or by force? Neither isn't an option.

The picture of neither is billions of people dying and millions of species going extinct.

The other option is we all consume and pollute far less, and birth control is as obtainable as water.

The other people using pesticides and expending the energy required to grow food for animals which are grown in such large quantities as to be a serious pollution problem that harms the water supply - which you eat - is you using those resources. Just because you aren't seeing the effects does not mean they are not there.

When industrial vacuums gobble up plankton which is to sold to fish farms so that you can eat farmed salmon - that is food that ocean life no longer has available to them. (There is also evidence that plankton help maintain the global temperature - so less plankton = more global warming).

Each one of us does not consume that much individually. Collectively - we are consuming more than the planet can bear. Does it really make sense to just ignore it and/or complain if someone tries to get you to think about it?

People have been taught to rebel against anyone suggesting an infringement on their right to consume - who do you suppose is responsible for that? Of course that's what the corporate world wants you to think. I think people who repeat that line are tools of corporatism.

[bryant69]

1. there are a whole lot of tools of corporatism, apparently

Still it's nice to have Diogenes around, even if he is kind of a downer.

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[LARED]

2. How do people see that as happening?

I view this as an economic question.

We consume because we can. It is human nature to live at the standard of living that is comfortable. We can because we have an incredible economy compared to the rest of the world. It is foolish to believe we can live with third world standards of consumption while we have a strong economy or that there is any motivation to change people to a lower standard if there is no motivation to. People worry about immediate needs, not whether the planet can sustain 6 or 200 billion people.

Of course the USA can vastly improve the impact of our consumption. For instance my friends from Italy rarely turn on lights unless absolutely needed. When energy prices rise in the US, causing an economic impact, people will start to turn off lights.

[bloom]

3. I don't think the burden should be put all on the poor.

To just wait until the prices of everything is so high - that some people can't afford heat or transportation.

So that those who have the money can consume freely.

There is much that society could do.

Like find answers in the realms of better public transportation and urban planning.

In Spain all new construction and reconstruction is required to be part solar. So some things like that could be required.

In other times and places house size has been restricted. That would go a long way toward reducing consumption of a lot of things. There would be only so much that would fit. Building codes could be beefed up to require minimum efficiencies.


In WWII - there was rationing. I think it's the only reasonable thing to do now as well - because not enough people will take non-consumption seriously otherwise.

Read "Collapse" if you want to know more about some different ideas. Having an "incredible economy" is no excuse for Americans and other "1st world" countries to trash the world. People accept all sorts of restrictions. So that's nothing new. The scope of what is needed is new.

As some have said - if there were a way to make money off of non-consumption - then you would see it being promoted.

[bloom]

4. ....

[bloom]

5. "Surprise: Not-so-glamorous conservation works best"

As seen posted in the Energy/Environment section:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=115x73946