Industrial Capitalism Still on Course to Consume the World

[Donnachaidh]

http://www.truthdig.com/eartotheground/item/unbridled_industrial_capitalism_still_on_course_to_consume_the_world_201105/

Echoing the now weary warnings of scientists, environmentalists and other well-meaning people, a United Nations report released Thursday says: “By 2050, humanity could devour an estimated 140 billion tons of minerals, ores, fossil fuels and biomass per year—three times its current appetite—unless the economic growth rate is ‘decoupled’ from the rate of natural resource consumption.”

“Decoupled” in this case means a condition in which high resource consumption is no longer considered a marker of healthy economies. —ARK

Inter Press Service:

The world is running out of cheap and high quality sources of some essential materials such as oil, copper and gold, the supplies of which, in turn, require ever-rising volumes of fossil fuels and freshwater to produce, the report found.

More at the link --

[femrap]

1. Knew this back in

the days of Jimmy Carter. No one wanted to hear The Truth back then and they don't want to hear it now...they're more spoiled now than ever.

Just glad I didn't reproduce and bring others into a world of Less and Less.

I wish I saw the Political Will to deal with this upcoming scarcity, but I just hear blather and see no action of significance.

Alas...maybe the Mayans and Hopis will be correct and we'll avoid a slow death of hunger, scarcity, and austerity programs forced upon the masses of non-wealthy.

[WinkyDink]

2. Being born in 1949 is looking better to me all the time.

[L0oniX]

3. Watch "The Corporation" ...Netflix

[Donnachaidh]

4. already have n/t

[robcon]

5. Malthusian economics: it worked out so well for Malthus, didn't it?

The article is silly, IMO.

[stuntcat]

6. saying "Malthusian" makes it all alright :eyes:

People can't wrap their minds around how fast the population of humans has risen, or what-all it will mean.
There is no "same-old same-old" anymor. Things are going to change, and not for the better.
The rest of this century will be a pathetic shame on our species. I am just glad I'm 40, and so so glad I didn't give the next 80 years to a child.

[robcon]

7. It IS the same-old, same-old.

Human prosperity still depends crucially on technological improvements... not on limited resources.

The capitalist system encourages innovations because a resource in short supply relative to demand will rise in price, and the payoff from alternatives becomes greater.

The article quoted was classic Malthus: fixed resources, no price system for allocating scarce resources, no technological improvements.

[stuntcat]

8. we'll see

I will hope in my heart for technology to save the millions starving, and the environment, and the animals' future.. not just the comfy 1st-worlders.

[robcon]

9. The world has prospered enormously in the last 2 centuries...

and the spread of even existing technologies into some parts of the world will improve conditions there.

[wuushew]

10. I don't agree with this, there are absolute limits to efficiency gains

believeing magically that R&D will change the raw amount of enenery to break chemical bonds, generate heat or grow food is naive.

Your two centuries of prospertiy correspond with both the unsustainable consumption of fossil fuels(millions of years in the formation) and the despoiling and overpopulation of the new world.

I don't believe that sum ecological awareness of 2011 man is vastly greater than of the ancients. Local resource collapse took down many cultures and I don't see why this mechansim can't operate on a global scale in our current era.