Quote:
Originally Posted by isenhand
Well, I think that that certainly represents one possible alternative, but then another book written presents another alternative. One where we could move over to a sustainable society that actually aims to balance our needs with those of nature through forming networks of communities that themselves have a certain degree of self-sufficiency and contributing to sustainability.
|
Remember what I wrote years ago about the Earthship Villages, high tech with small manufacturing ability. Biofuel and electric vehicles, and possible radio/satellite/physical contact with other similar villages. That was all from the median data, and the mathematical certainty of population crash and oil depletion.
Everything has changed since the firm data on methane release came from the Russians not long ago. Remember, their first data was off by 800% low!!! So now, with the actual case being 19% over the worst case scenario line of several years ago (modified from the early 90s), we are really looking at extreme species loss and a surface that is uninhabitable even for these villages. Totally underground massive fortresses with nuclear reactors, good water and treatment facilities, hundreds of years supply of food, and grow light capacity with generational population staticism, would still have difficulty making it for the many many thousands of years it will take the biosphere to return to close to what it was. If these "molemen" could last, what would they be like in 200k years? No eyes? Inability to handle solar radiation? Still have an inate inability to understand and live sustainably on the surface?
I agree with Bowman that, like with my first post, everyone should be thinking about sustainability as an ecological definition, not business, or the oxymoron sustainable development. The old Ute Indian Rule of Life, to think 7 generations ahead of the consequences of our actions and decisions, should have been adopted throughout humanity, as common sense and a religious principal.