How would that work on an urbanized planet with a population of almost 7 billion?
Actually, their complaint is that you’re putting too fine a point on it.
Emphasis mine.
Most typos are just annoying. Some rise to the level of genius.
I, for one, welcome our new photosynthesizing overlords, and would point out that as a poster to a well-known internet bulletin board, I can be very useful in rounding up slaves to work in their underground fertilizer mines.
Of course, that’s the question.
Cities do seem to represent a problem yet NYC uses per capita 1/3 the oil compared to the country as a whole (mass transit, fewer cars, lots of neighborhood stores within walking distance, etc).
Let’s face it, no matter how the shit comes down, it’s comin’ down with a whole lot of social and economic dislocation. A sizeable percentage the planet’s population simply will not make it thru the inevitable collapse of civilization as we know it brought on by unrestrained consumerism and the wholesale guzzling of finite resources wrapped in smog. There will be a transition to sanity and the sooner we start preparing for it, the easier it will be on us and the planet.
Nationalizing the oil companies would be a good first step.
Sure. As I said, the rich are the ruling class in any society.
The problem is, money has no real value and it is virtually infinite - that is, it is conceivable to have more money than available resources. Yet we have decided that we can exchange money for truly finite resources. It’s obvious that the checkbook will need to be balanced. But that probably won’t be necessary for a few more centuries, so we should just ignore that inconvenient eventuality.
While you know the answer to this, I will make it explicit so we can get the snide comments out of the way early: a lot of people wouldn’t survive. Implicit in your question is the knowledge that our planet cannot sustain 7 billion human beings but once again, let’s ignore that problem for now.
The system is evil. Seeing that doesn’t make one a nihilist. It makes one a realist.
Admitting that people aren’t ready for anything better makes one a pragmatist. People have gotten the system they deserve, in this case. And there won’t be a revolution, more’s the pity. So, many bastards are going to die in their beds of old age when by rights, yes, they should be working to make up for what they’ve done.
What makes “traditional” communities the exception? Most communities that I’m aware of that would fit that description, are no more sustainable than any others.
I mean traditional in the sense of the pygmy tribes in the African rainforest, or the islanders who loosed arrows at helicopters after the '04 Indian Ocean Tsunami. To me, a “traditional community” is one that can sustain itself for thousands of years in a singular habitat.
No, it makes you a whiny, pessimistic asshole. The system isn’t evil. It’s just the way that things are.
No it doesn’t. It means you need to wake up.
So let’s not change it? That’s pessimistic AND nihilistic.
No, let’s not change it because it doesn’t need to be changed. If there are individual problems, solve them. But you don’t make things better by overthrowing the existing society and trying to replace it with some sort of Utopian egalitarian pipe dream.
We can do better than that. No agriculture for ethanol and move away from monoculture to start. In other words, criminalize what amounts to taking “profit” from our ability to survive.
BTW, good to see you out and about and walking the Light side.
I’m hoping not to have to resort to food riots for “solution”.
What exists is not society but Social Darwinism run amok.
Capitalism has accomplished much. Let’s hear it for agriculturally derived technology: science, medicine and plastic. Without PVC and and plastic drip systems, even organic farms would be feeding far fewer and would require a lot more tending.
But let’s get over the fucking idea that it is pragmatic for the species not to recognize itself as the global community it must become to survive.
While I’m not sure if there are any long-term solutions to our consumption problems that would accommodate a semblance of our current way of life, any serious steps to curb consumption (and more important, the culture of consumption) would certainly help.
Thank you 
When dealing with ill conceived lunacy, the snide answer is usually the correct one. But I am glad to see that you realize your proposal would entail the death of 99% of humanity. Most armchair utopians aren’t that astute.
Should you feel inclined to respond to a loaded question: do you think that our current population can be sustained by the Earth indefinitely?
I honestly don’t know. But let’s say that it can’t. Well, then people will die and the population will shrink. But it seems strange to posit as a solution the very thing you want to avoid: the mass death of billions of people. If catastrophe happens then it happens, but we should try to avoid it.
I’m not positing the death of millions as a solution in itself; returning to a sustainable way of living is the solution. But if the Earth cannot sustain our current population, it only makes sense to attempt to change sooner instead of later. Granted, the resultant privation will already be extreme at this point, but the possibilities only get worse the longer we continue to abuse our resources.
Is there no possibility of large-scale problem-solving short of overthrowing society? If not, you’ve just erased the line between reformers and revolutionaries.
You might be right. I do agree that there is too much social Darwinism and too little society.
I for one am optimistic enough that if we could limit ourselves to 7 billion, we could dig ourselves out of this mess.
But of course we aren’t.