(un?)attractive sustainability

I am responding here because I can no longer find the blog page to post to that I am responding to.
After reading the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment Report I have no doubt that most of the data they have generated is accurate. They do make some unsubstantiated statements like (pp 29) “as climate changes become more severe, however the harmful impacts on the econosystem services out weigh the benefits in most regions of the world”. They talk about the great increases in the great amount of water impounded behind dams, the destruction of the coral reefs and the declining number of species of animals on the earth with out saying why these are all bad. On pp23 they do have an out by saying “it is difficult to assess the implications of econosystem changes, because changes are slow”. They continually refer to the fact that data is missing in a lot of areas and it might be needed to make intelligent decisions. That is very typical of government-sponsored reports. They tend to make a case for more reports and more reports. There is no end to making reports.
It does scare me when they say on pp 37 that the government can make “choices about what individuals consume and how much can be encouraged thru actions of the government”. Encouraged means that someone would like to dictate their ideas on how much to use to my life style. This I know I don’t want. I surely do not want any government telling me how many pounds of sugar I can have or how many gallons of gasoline I can have. I don’t think anyone in the free world wants to get into that situation. Many countries already have that. Cuba, Iraq (before the war) and North Korea and other dictator run countries have to do that to make there economics work.
As a whole I agree that it don’t look good if you are a believer in the status quo. I do not necessarily agree with the belief that we should slow our use of oil (a good suggestion that I will support if and when the economics dictate) because when the oil runs out we are dead. There is such a vast area where we can become more efficient in our oil use (again when economics dictates it) and there is so many alternatives to oil that will rear up when economics dictate. The same can be projected to water, wood, food and fish for that matter. All this will happen slowly over years and will be transparent to most people. But these will all require a change and have required change in the past, which as the report says have benefited mankind.
Many things we will not be able to change. The loss of species and the melting of the ice caps are inevitable. They have been going on for thousands of years. We may be able to slow them slightly but I feel it will be an insignificant savings when compared to total timeline in mans history.
We all know that we will have to change our life stile just as we have been for thousands of years. When and what do we change may be the big question. Now, when we are still assuming what the negative impacts will be, or later when we know what they are for sure. I guess it all boils down to two different philosophies. The do it now people seem to have a certain fear that if we wait it will be too late and the do it later people who have little concern that it will ever be too late.
Again if the changes required come about slowly enough then mankind will not notice that the change has even occurred. As my great grandkids grow up without seeing my life stile they will not know the difference even if, god forbid they have a lower standard of living. I remember growing up and hearing about the good old days. The days of horse and buggy and no TV. The days of wood burning stoves and ice boxes. Are you kidding me? These were the good old days? People seem to be nostalgic as they will be in the future. Things that used to be held dear and synonymous with quality of life are not cherished to this generation and consequently not missed. Fishing, hunting, camping, kayaking, and picnicking are all done by a low percentage of the world’s population. They used to be a symbol of quality of life. They are not missed by the city dwellers of today. Many of our so-called quality things will be replaced by other quality things and the old ones will not be missed.
The good old days may have been the days of fewer complications and less brain strain. Now life is so much more complicated.

Thanks for that Bill. You don't know how much I appreciate getting a differing view on these issues. Being here among other people who think like me I obviously don't get much diversity, and outside of class, there are not many people who find it "interesting" to talk about this unless they are passionate about environmental issues.

I have some thoughts regarding our differing views on the millennium assessment, but what I really want to do is find out at what point we begin to disagree. This is most interesting and helpful to me.

I make the assumption that you may not agree with all the points the study presents in the "Key Messages" section. So before going there, I wonder if you could look at these "basic principles of sustainability" which are the cornerstone of the course I am studying in. Forgetting everything else, do you agree with these? -Just in case you can't figure it out from my incoherent rambling on the website, these principles seem quite sound to me (although I have some problems with the finer points that we are being taught regarding how to use them). Regardless of whether or not you feel that "sustainability" is a good goal, or realistic or desirable, do you find any fault with the principles?

For a sustainable human society on earth, nature (or the biosphere -the thin layer on the outside of the earth where life exists) is not subject to:

1. systematic increases of concentrations of substances from the earths crust (meaning, we can not constantly increase the amount of heavy metals such as mercury, or stuff like CO2 faster than it can be taken in again, which is a loooooong time)

2. systematic increases of concentrations of substances produced by society (meaning persistent chemical compounds that are not natural to the ecosystem. If it is readily broken down, it generally does not accumulate, hence does not systematically increase, but such things as CFC and DDT or any of the other 100,000 persistent chemicals that are in use today)

3. systematic degradation (for example, cutting down trees faster than they grow back, destroying biodiverse areas faster than it can regenerate, over fishing, etc...)

The main point here is "systematic increase", so saying that it just keeps increasing, but not breaking down, or growing back, or being sequestered, and the continuous increase can not be sustained without doing harm to the system, hence "unsustainable".

They propose a fourth principles as well, which I have trouble with, however sounds like a nice rule of thumb. That is that:

4. A sustainable society is not subject to the systematic undermining of people's ability to meet their needs. (I guess it could mean that we don't do things that promote poverty or exploitation of other people)

To me, these comprise the most basic assumptions (more than that really since they are backed by science). They do not propose to tell us what will happen if we increase CO2 or persistent chemicals. It does not say anything about how long it will take to cause irreversible damage, etc... Just that "Systematically doing these things can not be sustained".

I am curious to hear your thoughts on these if you have the time. (if you get tired of this back and forth, don't feel obliged to keep it up, but I am far from tired as it is a great opportunity to see new views)