Cito di Pense wrote:

THWOTH wrote:

Alan B wrote:11 billion living 'sustainably'?
Define 'sustainably'.

Does this include reducing methane and carbon dioxide producing animal and vegetable food sources that contribute to AGW?
(Not forgetting that these 11 billion will also contribute methane and carbon dioxide as bodily functions...).

If so, what will these 11 billions live on?

Sure, it's almost impossible for one person to live 'sustainably' let alone 11bn. But surely one person can live more sustainably than they currently do by making small changes and some different choices? Isn't the point to understand the issues and make a move towards greater levels of sustainable living rather than baulking at the seemingly overwhelming prospect of 11bn people somehow living totally sustainable lives? If we accept that our way of life is unsustainable in the long run shouldn't we be trying to do something about that now?

Do you know what most people say? You first!

I'm childless. That's like saying "I gave at the office."

I'm fucking childless. I don't own a fucking automobile. I'm no globetrotter, like macdoc is. How difficult is all that to comprehend? You want me to take care of macdoc's kids? Good fucking luck with that.

The_Metatron wrote:We make our own deodorant.

Cito di Pense wrote:

felltoearth wrote:

Alan B wrote:11 billion living 'sustainably'?
Define 'sustainably'.

Clean water in, clean water out is an example.
Balanced use of renewable resources.
etc

Fine. Who's going to put in the necessary work, and who's going to pay for it?

I don't give much of a fuck if you have a conceptual definition of sustainable. Haven't you heard about "Tragedy of the Commons"?

This is the main problem with moralism. Simply knowing the right thing to do is not enough.

The Permian Extinction—When Life Nearly Came to an End
This mass extinction almost ended life on Earth as we know it.

Alan B wrote:I missed a point here. At the moment we still have a net positive birth-rate. We need to aim for a net negative birth-rate. Although in Hermits link it shows a decline in the net birth-rate, the population is still increasing...

Arcology, the Future of Sustainability
February 14, 2016 by szp5463 Leave a Comment

Are there any large projects that are aimed at reducing water consumption?

crystalisland-fosterpartners

After realizing how much water it costs to just make a sandwich, I thought to myself “How can anything I do really make a difference”, and so I began to look to see if there were any large projects that were designed to severely cut back on water consumption. What I found is a type of architecture called ‘arcology’, a cross between architecture and ecology. The main principle of arcology is to reverse urban sprawl, which can be achieved by creating (ideally massive) communities and structures that are self-sustaining isolated from the outside world. Using compact agricultural methods, renewable energy, and new social policies, these societies can make large changes in sustainability.

The term arcology was originally coined by architect Paolo Soleri, who tried to create his own city in the Arizona desert. And although it is neither large nor luxurious, it is used as an educational institution to teach students about sustainability and arcology. Other designs range from massive structures to floating cities to forest cities. The ideals that unite these different designs revolve around sustainability, including efficient farming, lack of mass consumerism, bans on cars, and others seem to make arcology sound like the utopia of the future.