RE: Panarchist Experiments: Can Propertarians & Non-Propertarians Co-Exist?
This is complicated.
That said, we need to clearly define what is greed?
We live on a shared planet, yet there is, and always will be someone who wants to own it all.
In some ways, I think most people respect basic property rights, society would be total chaos if we didn't.
It all comes down to resource allocation, its clear that we are in a society that is designed to be disposable.
Three subjects that everyone needs to understand, behavior, conflict resolution, and sustainability.
Underlying all of this, is communication, most of us (including myself) are stuck with one language, and we may not be able to communicate as clearly as we should in order to to have an effective understanding of one another.
The words we use are often used against us, in ways that we may not even understand.
Most of us are so compartmentalised that we can't see the problems that we all share. The left hand has no idea what the right hand is doing, and for some, they don't even realize they are just a cog in a very large machine.
Deception is everywhere, its how we got into this mess in the first place.
it's not really possible for the current population of humans to be "sustainable" if you define sustainability as living without using fossil fuels.
There is far too much waste in modern society. Look at all the trash in the ocean, for example.
Its easier to place blame on the sheer size of the population, rather than think of solutions that enable all of us to use resources more effectively.
It all boils down to economics, and more specifically, the fact that we live in an oil based economy.
Waste=profit. All of that cleanup, regulation, and related diseases are an even larger industry.
Its the same pattern with almost every major institution.
Create a problem, wait for wide scale public outrage, have a pre-planned solution in place, and profit.
Fossil fuels are not being used in a sustainable way, its part of the plan.
Boiling frog syndrome for most of the population.
Most are comfortable in the warm water that exists currently, it will start to boil eventually, and most won't survive.
It's not about placing blame on the size of the population it is about understanding that the population only achieved that size through the use of fossil fuel derived fertilizers and that it is impossible to sustain the current number of humans without fossil fuel derived fertilizers. Even if everyone swore off meat and you eliminated all so called food waste you could not feed 7 billion people without using fossil fuel derived fertilizers.
We have food waste on a scale that could feed millions, if not billions of people.
There is a substantial percentage of the world population that eats out of a garbage can.
Fossil fuels are not going to run out anytime soon either, according to most of these "peak oil" theories, we should have all been dead by now.
What will happen, is that oil will be more energy intensive to extract in the future.
We can't continue to waste resources like we do now, that is unsustainable.
all I really wanted to know was whether you define "sustainability" as using fossil fuels or not. All I was trying to explain is that the carrying capacity of the earth for humans without using fossil fuel fertilizers is only 2-3 billion.
Its a pointless discussion topic. I'll keep that in mind next time it comes up.