"What's wrong with the principle of sustainability?" by Dr. Diana Hsieh

http://www.PhilosophyInAction.com: Philosopher Dr. Diana Hsieh answers a question on the principle of sustainability on her weekly live Philosophy in Action Webcast. For any links mentioned in the webcast, see the question's archive page: http://www.philosophyinaction.com/archive/2011-12-04-Q1.html

Join the live webcast on applying rational principles to the challenge of living a happy and virtuous life every Sunday morning at 8 am PT / 9 am MT / 10 am CT / 11 am ET... and listen to past episodes and questions in the archives: http://www.PhilosophyInAction.com/archive/

Category:

Education

Tags:

• Egalitarianism
• Environmentalism
• Ethics
• Philosophy
• Politics
• Epistemology
• Libertarianism
• Ayn Rand

[amedtiffany]

Thumbs up if you think she talks too much about things she does not know anything about.

Want to learn sustainability, go read up on Bill Mollison and not this political quack.

[mekennedy1313]

This is rediculous! Sustainability isn't about stagnation. It says nothing about what you do specifically with the resources but how much resource you should use. For example a pound of sand can be put in a container and used as a paper weight, made into glass or made into a silicon solar cell. The latter uses require more energy but if that also comes sustainably, eg a solar furnace, then technological advancement occures sustainably. The thinking here promotes resource depletion & collapse

[TheLibertineish]

continued from last post... It is an environmental and societal experiment that neither you or I can foretell the outcome. To wish for responsible energy use that uses technology not of the future but that already exists but is suppressed and to pay attention to our ecosystem is not so crazy I think.

[TheLibertineish]

I believe one other thing you have not recognized is the fact that our current situation in the world can not be compared to the past. Some economists have looked at current world markets and have coined the term the "black swan" meaning there is no way to be able to tell the future outcome of what is occurring in the market system by past comparison because of the explosion of innovation and changes within. I think the same can be said of the environment and farming.

[TheLibertineish]

I think you made some valid points. But I definitely am in favor of the farming principles within sustainable agriculture. You also have not touched on the fact that industry has suppressed technology advances that have already been made in cleaner and more efficient energy such as the "geet fuel plasma reactor". I think this movement emphasizes not stagnation but emphasizes on appreciation for art and nature.

[Kiarip]

@mekennedy1313 Short-sighted consumer society is a result of a corrupted free market system, where the government is trying make spending profitable.

In a real market the fact that resources are running out makes them more expensive and this in itself limits the consumption of resources, however to forcibly reduce resource consumption is what is INDEED a short-sighted and is just another brand of communist command economy.

[Kiarip]

@mekennedy1313 do you really think that China who's beating everyone out economically now is practicing sustainability?... Your argument is non-sensical, no technological advancement ever occurred as a result of practicing sustainability, instead technological advancements are incentivized by the scarcity of resources as a result of broadening of consumption

[Kiarip]

@mekennedy1313

LOL. It's not bigotry it's a conclusion based on empirical evidence. As for America, Rome, or European countries I hardly see how they exemplify a failure of practicing sustainability. If we started practicing sustainability back in the time of Rome we'd still be in the Feudal ages...

Roman fell because they were too set in their ways, and eventually Europe became way more advanced than Rome was. America is experiencing bubbles because of the monetary policy.

[mekennedy1313]

@Kiarip Name one that survived long term, Romans didn't, when plunder no longer met their needs they were easily overcome. How about the greeks today or the italians seeing their economies collapse. Heck what of the housing bust in the good ol' USA or the fact that America is swiftly loosing the technological battle globally. It's become the copycat nation instead of the innovator. As for the natives being incapable, that is simply bigotry on your part.

[mekennedy1313]

@Kiarip The attitude that "resources run out eventually" is the basic wrong headedness that justifies the short sighted consumer society. Resources, well managed, do not run out. Technological advancement is not predicated on resource utilisation. What does happen is that advamcement slows. That gives time to figure out if an advancement is good, promotes long term growth, or bad , like DDT the wonder pesticide or thalidamide for nausea.

[Kiarip]

@mekennedy1313 the mayan and mesoamerican example sucks, you're cherry picking. There have been tons of examples where a civilization ran out of resources and used their innovation to continue to thrive, Mayans is just an example of a civilization that didn't, it's no surprise you picked a native american civilization given how weak they were in the first place. Of course not every civilization will overcome their challenges, history shows us Natives were particularly incapable.

[Kiarip]

@mekennedy1313 lmao and what's an example of such a culture? Resources are going to run out eventually, to say it's your responsibility there's some left for the next generation is asinine, it is consumption of resources that actually leads to technological advancement, and when the resources are near their end, and their cost rises dramatically, an incentive is created for these advancements.