Technology will not come to the rescue to resolve our nation’s pressing needs for energy, clear air, clean water, or a secure food supply. While it is complicated to take inventory of the biosphere, the concept that it is finite is easy to grasp. We reached Peak Oil almost 40 years ago, and our next options for energy source exploitation use nearly as much energy to get to and as much capital for processing as the actual sales themselves. Development in China and India brings onboard nearly 3 billion people aspiring to the lifestyle of middle class America, which already uses up more “Earth” per capita than any other nation.
The dangerous question we are faced with is a nightmare scenario in which everyone keeps wanting more, more material goods, more high-food-chain diets, and more energy-consuming activities? Capitalism tells us that the market will supply satisfaction and meet demands of consumers, but we can no longer assume that they are rational, and they have certainly not been driven to act in the best interests of the global community.
The American “way of life” stems from the reckless natural resource exploitation of colonialism. Before our Independence, we were a cash-cow of raw materials to be sent back to an island Empire long-depleted of timber, furs, and minerals in quantities comparable to that of this “virgin” continent. The Europeans saw the Americas as virginal because they had yet to be exploited for the purposes envisioned by these war-mongering machines of industrialization that sought to conquer the world. Set on instant gratification in all sectors, teeming out of a blind faith in our infant nation, we grew our food so intensively that it kicked up a Dust Bowl of loess. We planned (rather, did not plan) sprawling cities that cover agricultural land and create a labyrinthine suburbia made for private transportation without mass-transit systems in order to satiate the auto industry’s desire for customers. We grew our economy fast and big, a fat piggy bank of waste that took industrial products from cradle-to-grave instead of from cradle-to-cradle, because we foolishly believed that we would never run out of anything. Across the nation – be it in Cancer Alley Louisiana, Allentown Pennsylvania, Detroit, Chicago, or the Appalachian coalfields – our health is for sale to the lowest bidder; if you want to set up the industry, we will make sure that your heaviest pollution is concentrated in areas of economic poverty and deprivation. Recreation, pastimes, the joys of a “developed” (ethically or unethically) culture, these things that we think of when we seek to define ourselves as a group, are largely generated from eco-gluttonous activities… Hotdogs and hamburgers in the summertime, taking cross-country vacations to the beaches or mountains, our constant connection to computers, the internet, television, and phone lines that braid across the amber waves of grain. Purple mountains majesty every day are sliced flat to power our iPods and Xbox 360s. All of these things will be gone in the coming land, water, and energy shortage as the world population strains already fragile per-capita allotments.
To save ourselves – and the world – from the environmental degradation that is every day ebbing closer to an irreversible tipping point, we must stop the use of fossil fuels, which are non-renewable in the scales of our lifetimes, and decrease demand for energy (redefining the quality of life of the middle class) so that combined solar, wind, geothermal, and renewable biomass can have a chance at powering the needs of a world making the demographic shift from “developing” to fully developed. We must have better land planning to fill in gray and brown fields in the urban landscape, the dream of a McMansion and half-acre yard must be abolished in favor of space-efficient apartment-style living as seen in Japan’s major cities.
Arable land must be devoted to supplying food to the population in a way that preserves it’s quality and nutrient value for years to come. People will eat low and local – low on the food chain to maximize solar energy, and locally to minimize energy wasted in transportation and storage. Water must be conserved; never again will we turn a sprinkler on an artificial lawn in the Southwest, never again will we waste 2500 gallons of water to produce a pound of beef. We will retire the notion of greed and reduce our consumption and materialism, using recyclable resources, recycling for textile fibers, composting and sending biomass back to farms, and reducing the demand for petroleum products, also known as plastics.
No longer will we use 25mpg sitting alone in a hunk of metal on an asphalt highway. All transportation will be done to maximize the efficiency of the chosen fuel per rider; when traveling must be done, it will be done en masse. The need for commuting will be eliminated by mixed-use infrastructure that puts people living near their workplaces. Buildings will be constructed with green roofs, grey water recycling, and off-grid energy systems incorporated into their initial designs.
This should go without saying, but reducing the population growth rate is mandatory in allowing for any of these measures to actually make a difference.
If we do not change our lifestyles now, there will be nothing – NO TECHNOLOGY – that can save us from becoming the harbingers of a global doomsday. The climate will continue to change, the planet will continue to warm (despite the fact that we are headed into our next solar Ice Age), oceans will continue to rise, and ecosystem services will continue to be lost by cutting down forests to use as pastureland and choking our rivers with sediments from erosion and pollution. As tipping point after ecological tipping points are breached, there will be no way for this biosphere – developed over millennia into the evolved being that we know it to be – to have a chance to recover.
Monday, September 28, 2009
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
What this group is saying, is that there is a problem with our current way of life. Current fossil fuel use and lifestyles are unsustainable, and the earth cannot keep bearing the brunt of our actions. They argue that the way to fix this problem is not technology, but a lifestyle shit in our culture. They talk about protecting arable land, reducing suburban landscapes, using less raw materials, and watching our personal energy use and consumption. The only question I have, is will this be able to curb climate change and our fossil fuel consumption needs fast enough? I agree that our lifestyle choices are a great source of environmental degradation, and we must shy away from fossil fuels, but I also feel that technology can HELP fix the problem. Will we be able to change our lifestyles fast enough?
ReplyDeleteDebate team C’s position was that extreme, immediate, and far-reaching conservation of fossil fuels, and all energy, is needed. They also argued that technology is not a panacea. In their paper they state that technology will not save us from the mess we have made. They state that peak oil was reached 40 years ago and that they oil that is left will have too much energy to get to. They state that the Europeans saw the Americas as virginal because they had yet to be exploited. I agree with this statement. I think that we have taken advantage of the land we acquired and that we should be ashamed. People are very greedy and it is our nature to want more and more, but this can’t be the case if we want to survive. There is a limit to what we have and we are beginning to run out. This group does a great job in showing us how technology is hurting our earth. They state that the earth is being destroyed to power the technologies that we have come to depend on. So how could technology solve the problem if it is already a problem itself? They state that to save ourselves, and the world, from the environmental degradation we must stop the use of fossil fuels. This group really made me think about how bad it is to rely on technology to save us. I think they have an extremely well written paper that really gets their point across. I think that they will be a very strong voice during the debate. They had a lot of strong statements in their paper that really put it over the top, one of these being: If we do not change our lifestyles now, there will be nothing – NO TECHNOLOGY – that can save us from becoming the harbingers of a global doomsday. Really nice job guys!
ReplyDeleteGroup C's position states that technology will not save us from our self-destructive energy consumption, and that drastic measures must be taken immediately to save the planet from environmental degradation and eventual collapse. Our gluttonous lifestyles and habits must change enormously, and everything from land development to transportation and food consumption must also change. We must completely stop the use of fossil fuels for energy. In addition, we must also work to reduce the global population growth rate to make these changes effective. Group C also indicates that our gluttonous lifestyles can be traced back to the early colonial days, in which our main concern was exploiting the "New World's" natural resources for the benefit of England. I think that Group C has written a very persuasive and well-developed position paper, and I agree with their position in most aspects. I do believe, however, that technology has the ability to help us greatly in the quest for cleaner and more efficient energy sources. Group C's debate will be very interesting to hear!
ReplyDeleteGroup C opposes the idea that technology will solve the issue of fossil fuels because the new technologies can in fact cost more money and consume more energy than non-renewables. They argue that up until this point booming technologies to ‘advance’ society are actually the root causes of environmental degradation, pollution, crowded cities, etc. In order to break this trend, we must stop the use of fossil fuels and decrease our demand for energy as a whole. Other solutions to the growing problem of energy consumption include: decreasing population, better eating habits, water conservation, mass transportation, and basically a complete change in hierarchical society where people work near their homes, grow and buy local foods, etc. There needs to be a change from a commuter society to a stay-at-home society. They argue not that technology is necessarily bad, but in order to be able to use technology in the future we have to change our lifestyles now.
ReplyDeleteVery interesting viewpoint on the issue! I agree with you that we need a serious lifestyle change now if we expect to sustain our quality of life for the future. There is no doubt that technology, although it can be a good thing, can also get us into trouble when we get too excited or overzealous over the innovative ideas (such as heavy farming out West due to westward expansion fever resulting in the devastating Dust Bowl…). I do think, however, that we need to invest some technology in acquiring modes of renewable energy now before we run out of finite resources. The main problem I have with technology is the burden it will put on future generations to not only sustain, but improve it as demand requires.
Awesome paper! Sound evidence and great points!
Group C encourages that we must cut down on our energy consumption, in every form. We have been overconfident that we would not run out of resources, but we will, and we need to change our ways for the survival of our species and planet. They suggest that eating low on the food chain, conserving water, limiting travel and reducing population growth are some key ways to reduce our energy consumption. While all of this seems well and good, I believe there are logistical and ethical concerns. With an increasing population, eating low would require many new crop fields to be opened up; which would cause reductions in ecosystems. Cutting back on travel can work in larger cities (if a person could find a home near the workplace), but this cannot work in many rural areas. How could you deny people the right to live in an area more suitable to their culture and/or beliefs? The ever increasing population is another hard topic to tackle. To implement this, limits on family size would need to be regulated, and with the increasing life expectancy of humans, there is the issue of further reducing family numbers.
ReplyDeleteGroup C argues that it doesn’t matter whether you use alternative energy or natural resources. Either way, it will not be enough to fulfill future consumption. A steady growth in population and the increasing levels of per capita consumption means we have no choice but to change the way we live in order to meet future energy demands. It is scary when you factor countries like India and China into the mix that are trying to live up to the excessive American lifestyle that is a result of a capitalist society. I liked the allusion to historical events like the dustbowl and construction of massive suburbs as well as the stark imagery about the “eco-gluttonous activities” that fill American lives today. The biggest problem with Group C’s argument is that there is no way to actually make sure energy reduction happens. While this movement has some momentum, buying local or green is sometimes seen as just a passing fad. Unless EVERYONE makes the choices - to buy local, save energy, invest in homes to incorporate greener living strategies, travel less - our entire economic system is thrown off. I agree with Group C that we have an ethical duty to make a positive statement for the rest of the world by backing down our current levels of energy consumption. This was a very well written paper with numerous great points!
ReplyDeleteAh, group C. That position paper was down right apocalyptic, and I like it! First, you guys illustrated a bleak dystopia in which we are all doomed, and that gloomy future lays before us regardless of any techno miracle. We can't rely on a few brilliant scientists to fix our problems, because this dilemma must be faced by each and every one of us. We all have to eat smarter, travel smarter, work smarter, live smarter!
ReplyDeleteAfter describing the troubling future we may face, you shared your solution from what seems like a progressive urban-planner's point of view. I agree that a big part of our problem is that we have a very in efficient infrastructure. We need to have smarter, walkable cities created with mixed use, community gardens, bioretention, rain collectors, vertical development rather than lateral, public transportation, etc. Phew! I feel like I'm in a UAP class all over again, but smarter development is going to be a big part of the solution (if we ever do solve the problem).
I have a couple problems though. If we are all living in the utopian cities, who gets to live in rural communities? Are only farmers allowed to live outside of cities? I grew up in a very small rural community, and I am unsure how places like my home fit into your grand scheme. Also, some cities are too big to ever be made sustainable. They have developed in a world in which food was shipped in from all over and there was plenty of cheap energy. And now they are too disconnected from their natural resources to ever be made sustainable. Do we scrap these cities altogether?
Group C argues that we must change the way we live because growth in population and per capita consumption will outstrip all energy supplies. Regardless of using natural or alternative energy source, we cannot keep living the way we do and expect that everything will be fine in the future. Technology can only take us so far and actually use more energy too. Depending on technology completely to fix our energy crisis will make fools out of us. In order to not be fools, we must change the way we live now . I agree with this. However, I do believe that technology should not be completely ruled out. I mean it is so integrated in our way of life. How will the people find solutions to fix the energy crisis problems? Will they meet over dinner at a place with air conditioning and electricity? Will they use a computer to copy the notes and may send emails to inform everyone? How will this actually rule out technology?
ReplyDeleteGroup C argues that we are beyond the peak of the world oil supplies. Society constantly wants more, and it is a simple fact that producers are more than willing to increase supply to meet the growing demand. But what happens when the supply is gone? Group C present the drastic solution of ending the use of fossil fuels. By no longer using fossil fuels, environmental harm will be drastically reduced, and by then implementing a lifestyle change, we can begin to repair the bio-damage caused to the earth. I like the fact that Group C is firm on their position, and they clearly define why they feel it is the only solution. On the other hand, I feel their solution may not be realistic because it requires so much sacrifice by a society that is only seeking to gain.
ReplyDeleteGroup C makes the argument that it is not the type of energy we use, but how much we use it, and how energy is incorporated into our personal everyday lifestyles. Although I am in an opposing debate team, I too agree that our lifestyles will need to alter in a drastic way in order to accommodate for war-time mobilization of change in the energy sector. The question is however, if this societal change will occur fast enough. I believe in the mean time that we must begin efforts now to move towards renewable energy before it is too late. I agree that our lifestyle choices are a major factor in environmental degradation, however it is with reduced consumption, and reduced energy use, supplemented with the shift to renewable energies that will solve the pressing issues and problems our nation faces today and will face in the future.
ReplyDelete-- Kirsten Dobson
Group C argues that we need to change our way of life in order to have a reliable source of energy for years to come. They think we cannot rely on fossil fuels, but that we may also not rely on green renewable energy resources that come from technological advances. With a booming population that is expected to reach 9 billion in the next thirty years, our high energy demands will not be met by these technologies. They argue that a whole new economy system and lifestyle is required in order for a continued existance. This includes decreasing the increase in population, massive public transit, eating local foods, more apartment style living, and better land planning so that alternative energy sources have a chance at supplying us with our needs. Although I believe they make a good arguement and came up with reasonable lifestyle changes, we cannot deny the fact that people will continue to consume at high levels and do what's easiest and cheapest for them. What we already know how to do is what is easy, and people tend to avoid change especially towards a less lucious lifestyle. They should mention ways that these lifestyle changes would be implemented, such as government action. They could also talk about what point we could convince people that these changes are absolutely necessary for everyone.
ReplyDeleteGroup C, unlike the first two groups, this group are technology skeptics. They believe that there is no technology that can save us. With more countries developing and becoming industrialized they exploit and overuse the land around them causing irreversible damage to the environment and develop an economy that does the same. The solution is stopping the use of fossil fuels, implementing renewable energy and changing our energy consumption by redefining quality of life in the US. We must become local, grow local, eat local, and eat low on the food chain. There must be better land planning and green housing along with a new transportation infrastructure. We must conserve water and stunt population growth. Without a lifestyle change we doom the planet to a technology based Armageddon.
ReplyDeleteGroup C's position is also one of sustainability but with less faith in the ability of technology to solve our problems and continue to support our consumptive habits as well as a growing population. They advocate conservation and wise use of land and resources. Integrating many different methods of securing energy along with increased efficiency could go a very long way in creating energy independence while also being environmentally friendly. With an increasing number of people on planet earth it is impossible for us to maintain the same lifestyle without catastrophic effects.
ReplyDeleteGroup C argues that nothing, not even technology, can save us from future except a drastic change in lifestyle. They believe that it does not matter whether or not we use renewable or natural resources, but that nothing will be good enough to fill our need for energy consumption. There is simply not enough energy in the world to keep our energy-demanding society alive. They believe that the only way our nation will prevail, and even maintain existence, is if we create a whole new economic system and lifestyle. These changes include a decrease in the population, eating local and low chain foods, having apartment style living rather than each person having their own yard, switching to massive public transportation, and better land planning so that alternative energy sources have a chance at supplying us with our needs.
ReplyDeleteGroup C's position, although raising some very important concerns, seems radical to me. I do agree that our economy thrives for energy and that this isn’t every going to change. However I do believe that we can find ways to alter our current use of energy and develop better ways in order to produce energy. I think technology does how the power to make this work, and that our entire lifestyle doesn’t need to change, rather just major bits and pieces.
Team C also brings up some valid points. Come to America originally we lived a simple, self-sustaining life. As we our nation grew appear to have become guilty and taken more than we should have. Reverting to previous life seems to be the only way to save our planet.
ReplyDeleteSo if we need to revert, how do we decide what stays and what goes? And at what costs. Do we go back to horses and Indians? The process of “reverting back” would mean massive destruction of cities. Homes, markets, jobs, and lives would be destroyed. And what do we do with the aftermath? I think this reversion could potentially harm our environment more as we start to use more wood again, exhaust our soils in trying to grow food. Many parts of our nation would become inhabitable.
Team C brought up the point that the population needs to decrease drastically. At what cost? Do we simply slow reproduction, or do we pick and choose those that we eliminate. Team C also brought up the point of climate change. With or without humans on this planet, it is going to change, as it has in the past. It’s trying to stop these changes will critically hurt our environment.
This change in life style is drastic and unrealistic. It would take the world as a whole agreeing to this for this to actually happen. Wars would without a doubt breakout over resources and there will always be greedy people out there who will take advantage of the system.
Group C argues that technology cannot save us from our demands for energy. They argue that we need to stop using fossil fuels immediately and convert our sources of energy to renewable methods and also lower our demands for energy. They also say that we need to slow population growth and lower our standards of living from current levels. Their argument is very radical in our society that we should stop all of our use of fossil fuels and basically change our entire lifestyles to be more sustainable. However, their argument is also somewhat fragile in that they say technology cannot save us but they also advocate the technologies of solar, wind, and geothermal, all of which are very complicated technologies that are still being developed to be more efficient. Also they make many demands that would ruin the economy and be met with massive resistance by people in all walks of life. Overall their argument is unsustainable and contrary to their opinions.
ReplyDeleteGroup C argues that the only way we can live a sustainable lifestyle is to embrace renewable energy resources but more importantly curb the habits we have come to acquire. Little can be effectively down to reduce emissions when our lifestyles prohibit the effectual use of renewable energy. We must be the change, we can no longer look to large companies and the government to make our greedy lifestyle 'green'. Personally, I think that lifestyle changes will come with the implementation of sustainable energy sources. It has become far too easy and cheap for cars to run on petrol and pollute the atmosphere with little regard for those around us. Change will take a cultural shift, and this movement needs an effectual leader to make any progress.
ReplyDeleteGroup C’s position on technology is not one of concerning what we need to do better, but what we need to consider is our population rate. According to our world population, determines how many resources we need which in turn affects the energy crisis. Therefore, do we really need to ponder about how we are going to “treat” or “lay-forward” for our future? Do we need to worry about how many people we are providing these energy resources for? As Group C mentioned, China and India accounts for 3 billion people that need the same resources we use here in the United States. What does this say about all of the resources we use? This means that the power that one of us use, times 3 billion is the amount used a day. These numbers get you thinking about not just new technology but why we are moving to these new technologies because fossil fuels are running out due to so many people.
ReplyDeleteGroup C’s position is that the there is no hope for humanity unless the entirety of the world moves from its current lifestyle to one that is entirely focused on reducing ones effect on the environment then the world is doomed. their argument is fanciful and blown entirely out of proportion. as they tell their tail they give little evidence to support their claims. they offer total planetary overhaul as the only hope for survival. I am not entirely opposed to trying to create a greener world, but what they are proposing is eco-communism. they fail to see any middle ground. this, and the fact that it would be impossible to implement what they are proposing without the use of force, make their argument outlandish.
ReplyDeleteWe should as a people work towards a better future. we most definitely need to reevaluate the way we think about most things. we need to educate one another on what that means create a more sustainable future and what we can do to achieve it. presenting it like this though will only send people running or cause them to scoff at you.
Group C's opinion seems to be the most potent of all three groups. Their opinion is we must change everything we are doing now in order to save the Earth and life as we know it. Renewable energy is given as a clear means of how we need to harness our energy usage but more drastic measures are called in. Utilization of all land in order to create more food and for plants to filter the air, transportation no longer will be done in a singular fashion, and drastically reducing the use of petroleum products are just some of the measures they call action to. Where as this argument does make sense in the way of fixing the problem at hand, I see it being far too difficult to carry out. I would like you to address your plans on how you will get enough people to rally around your ideas to actually get them to work.
ReplyDeleteYou say that we need to decrease our demand for energy so that renewable sources can have a chance at supplying sufficient energy for us, but renewable sources could easily power the planet with our current lifestyles maintained. The amount of solar panels that it would take to power the planet in its current condition with its current energy needs could be fully contained in a small portion of the Sahara Desert or could be scattered around the globe in smaller clumps. The surface area required for these solar panels is roughly 366,000 square kilometers. That is a smaller area than the state of Texas. How do you plan on reducing population growth? And how to plan on convincing people to change their lifestyles? Give up their comfortable, roomy homes and luxurious cars? I just don't see these changes as a realistic option.
ReplyDeleteI mostly agree with Group C's initiative to change our lifestyle, not our energy sources and I also believe their position paper would be able to sway many people in the persuasive manner its written in. I understand the change would have to be drastic, with little to no leisure-like use of resources for entertainment or other "frivolous" activities, but even with all the suggestions of what would have to be done I don't think our Earth will ever get close to going back to its original state. My main issue with their argument is how they said that the world population would have to decrease, but posed no way to do so. The only options seem war and disease, both of which no one wants to see happen or putting limits on children, which I just can not agree with. There is no way that idea would be accepted in developed nations.
ReplyDeleteGroup C's opinion is that in order to save the natural resource we must change not only changes our life styles but our dependence of fossil fuels and improve our technology. Their position is that we do not have enough natural resources to maintain our life styles at this rate. They state that we need to reduce the population growth in order to implement the lifestyle changes that need to take effect in order to reduce our dependence of natural resources. Some of these changes are: population size, yard size (living in apartments) and transportation methods. They also date problems back to the colonial times as well.
ReplyDeleteMy critique- Group C brought up the point of changing our life styles. Although this is a good thought and could potentially help save the remaining fossil fuels; what is the likeliness that the whole world population will participate these changes. They also mentioned "reducing the population growth rate is mandatory." How are we going to reduce the population growth? Will slowing the population growths make that much of a difference?
Group C are the technology skeptics, believing that creation and invention of new technologies will not save us from our greedy ways with energy consumption. With India and China bringing in 3 billion more people, all aspiring to live like Americans, who already use up the most resources per capita, the Earth just doesn’t have capacity to fill everybody’s wants. They think the solution lies in cutting off use of fossil fuels and lowering the demand for energy. This will allow renewable sources such as wind, solar, geothermal and biomass, a chance to fill the energy needs of everybody. This will also require better planning of land space and less acreage yards available for people. Another big change needed is reducing the population growth rate to as to not have more people than we have the resources to support. On a final note, they believe if we do not change our ways now, then there is no technology that could save us from ourselves.
ReplyDeleteGroup C are arguing in the role of the “energy-skeptic.” They claim that there is nothing we can do, as in discover new technology for alternative energy resources or continue on the current energy path we are on, except change the ways we are living our lives right now. A huge portion of their argument are in ways that we can reduce the amount of energy used in our population and community, but it involves giving up the lifestyle that we have made for ourselves. They argue that we cannot take more energy than we need – we must conserve what we have, because despite our efforts, the planet will continue to warm, oceans will continue to rise, etc. Our history has led us to a “take all, give nothing back” mindset when it comes to our resources, and Group C thinks that the only way to sustain energy is not through technological advances or conserving the few fossil fuels we have left, but through changing our lifestyle for the better of the resources.
ReplyDeleteThe energy skeptics wrote a well written and thought out position paper. It is hard not to agree with them. Yes, with the growth of the Earth’s population, energy is becoming less and less sustainable and soon we WILL need to find a way out. It seems everyone comes back to the ‘global doomsday’ – which in itself is ridiculous, but, yes, if we keep growing and growing, than there will be no way out as well will infest the world with energy demanding humans. The population growth rate MUST be slowed down, but how in this democratic society?
ReplyDeleteGroup C believes that with increases in lifestyle come increases in worldwide consumption, and that our only chances to save our environment and better our environment is to change the way we treat and view our environment.Capitalism has overshadowed environmental stewardship, and we have no qualms to sell our souls for an extra dollar to make it through the day. We must change our views away from making the easy choices on things such as food, transportation, and farming practices and instead look towards making what we have last. I like this groups argument because they have a wide variety of ideas concerning things that need to be changed, including everything from changes in lawn care to the eradication of current wasteful farming techniques.I don't like some of the writing style and vocabulary choice, because an idea such as this is often hard for many people to resolve with themselves. This needs to be put in a more passive rather than agressive style for it to be recieved well by the general population.
ReplyDeleteGroup C’s position argued that technology can’t save us. They propose that we have to also change our way of life or technology will never be able to help us or save us from the affects of our actions on the environment. Group C suggest recycling more and in general using less nonrenewable resources like coal and gasoline. I agree with this as well as the fact that they also want us to invest in more alternate sources of energy now so we can reduce the global affects of our actions for the next generation.
ReplyDeleteGroup C argues that we must protect our natural resources because they are in fact dwindling or already surpassed their maximum capacity. The group then states that technology focused on a new alternative will just delay the problem instead of fixing it. The group states that they only way to save our resources, atmosphere, and ultimately ourselves is by changing the way we live life. This includes everything from the way we eat, our transportation, and recreational activities. In theory all this seems like the best alternative because it will in fact preserve our world, but change is one of the most feared words/actions for society. People get used to the way they are doing something and when you tell them that is no longer the case, it upsets people and even angers them. By completely changing how society is living in the U.S. would not only cause fear/protests, but also change our culture; we would have to recreate our morals, traditions, and beliefs. In theory I believe this is a great idea, but I think this would have to be implemented in very small steps, in which case it may happen too late.
ReplyDelete4. Group C presented the argument that I often hear get criticized. Our energy demand per capita is increasing like crazy. They spoke about global warming and how our biosphere is finite. We have to change our lifestyles, and do so forcefully to get people to conform, by large scale government action, taxing people, and curbing the population growth. I agree with a lot of what they were saying, however, I feel that technology has to come in somewhere. We cannot just stop everything and completely change our lives. That will definitely take time. So what if while we tried to get people to believe that we are destroying our Earth, we use technology to help reduce our use?
ReplyDeleteGroup C is arguing that at the current rate that the human race is consuming natural resources, this planet will someday be unable to sustain life. They state that there needs to be a significant worldwide reduction of natural resource usage while at the same time a step towards new ways of producing energy that will have less of an ecological impact. One thing that caught my attention was the suggestion of altering people’s lives entirely by reducing commuting by housing people closer to their workplaces and then in addition changing the workplaces to have more self sustaining properties like an off-grid energy system. This brings about the questions of who truly has that authority and is it really practical. Who has the power to tell someone where they are supposed to live? I feel that forcing people to move to be closer to their workplace or to be living somewhere near other people they work with so that they can commute together may cause unwanted arousal throughout society. There is also the question of if it would truly be sensible. Changing all the requirements to building plans would add numerous costs to them that would be rested upon the shoulders of not only the heads of the companies, but also the construction workers building the facilities and the employees that work for the company because no single person is going to want to take these costs on all themselves. Also with the reduction of commuting, given that people do agree to relocate their lives to somewhere near where they work, how will that reduce the commuting to visit other people, like friends or relatives. What if there is more than one working member in the family and their workplaces are located in complete opposite directions, how does that reduce commuting? In all I agree with the argument that there needs to be a reduction in the consumption of the planets resources, but I feel that there needs to be different planning on how to implement it.
ReplyDeleteYou guys have some interesting evidence, but how do you, in your condemnation of the American way of life, not acknowledge some of the greatest victories of humanity and technology? So much poverty relieved, so much eased pain in poorer nations, the eradication of small-pox. There is cause for concern, but also celebration. Don't you think a little faith in people is necessary if we are to succeed?
ReplyDeleteGroup C believes we need a drastic change in our way of life to save us from our destructive consumptive behaviors. Technology will not be able to save us and we need to do as much as possible, and do it soon, to avoid the coming collapse of society. They believe we need to eat low on the food chain and eat locally, live in apartment style house, have mass transportation, and recycle everything possible. They also believe we need to get rid our dependancy on plastics and our "need" for space. We need to change our ideals of what is quality living.
ReplyDelete