can any technology beyond the stone-age be truly sustainable?

[abelhas]

well, the title says it all

[Corey]

nope, so that's why we have to do the best we can the current human race is too over populated to even go back. Also we have poluted and killed off too much of our environment to even do that. when the last time you drank river water without fear of getting sick??? or when is the last time you seen wildlife in abundance? or when is the last time you seen Stretches of pristine habitat not touch or damaged by man? its too late to go back completely. I suggest we use the most sustainable of the technology while going back as far as possible especially in regards to restoring diversity and getting chemicals out of the environment so we can hopefully still be here to drink straight from the rivers in relativity safety.

[abelhas]

i agree entirely. we are establishing ourselves with a relatively clean landbase, plenty of access to water, and land for growing, but also pulling together a community of people we can rely on, and with diverse basic skills.

as you say, we should do what we can, using aspects of technology to prepare to soften the blow as things continue to hot up. none of it will be viable in the longterm, but useful in the transition phase back to stone age. i dont expect mainstream organisations to do anything useful, on any meaningful scale, so we continue little by little in our own local area.

[Homer]

If the whole human population lived of selected microbes an Artice waste land the size of London could sustain a global population ten times what we have.

The technology has been around for decades
Australian Spirulina, a rich nutrient and complete food source for healthy living

Of course who wants to just eat microbes, veganism would be a lot more delicious, maybe not more efficeint than the stone age but still many times more efficient than the today's average Western diet.

[Corey]

Still need general food we can't live on vitamins/minerals alone we also need water and such. Our digestive track is not efficient enough to live on a pill diet. It could be good as a supplement to a grain diet though.

[Cleo]

Originally Posted by Corey

when the last time you drank river water without fear of getting sick??? or when is the last time you seen wildlife in abundance? or when is the last time you seen Stretches of pristine habitat not touch or damaged by man?

Question 1: This past weekend. Or every day if I so choose.
Question 2: This past weekend. Or every day if I so choose.
Question 3: There are many, many such places. Minnesota has several, for example.

This is not meant to be snippy, but a little peace, hope, and optimism goes a long, long way. There are many, many beautiful places to visit & explore.

Peace,
Cleo

[isenhand]

Can any technology beyond the stone-age be truly sustainable? Yes, it can. However not as we do so at the moment. We would need a different culture. They system I propose for a technological sustainable society centres around networks of sustainable communities (of say about 10 000 people each).

Society would not use money nor have any private ownership of the means of production. Producing to meet people’s needs forms the only incentive we would have. If you then have various experts managing the technology to minimise energy and utilisation of resources you can dramatically cut production and, therefore, our environmental impact. Add to that reduce, reuse and recycling you could maintain a sustainable society that still has a high standard of living (and have less working hours).


Each community would manage its own food, energy and waste internally and then have some additional production capability producing things for local consumption. Communities would cooperate as and when needed with local communities only going as far out as needed and no more. Each community, then, forms a sustainable building block to build a socioeconomic system from.

To do this we would also have to stabilise population (and maybe even reduce it).

As to Corey’s point. Yeap, that’s correct with today’s system. The environmental damage we comes as a by-product of our current socioeconomic system, which we can not sustain. However, it does not follow that all technological societies will have the same characteristic.

[abelhas]

Originally Posted by isenhand

To do this we would also have to stabilise population (and maybe even reduce it).

i dont think we'll have any choice in this - in the near future there are gonna be a lot less people. just a question of what kind of mess they are left with, and how hard the people who 'own' the world now fight to retain their privilege. countries like the uk need land reform more than venezuela (which is doing it), but i dont think those whose families have owned the land since the norman conquest are gonna just give it up.

i also believe that 10,000 people is a large city (if looked at realistically), communities will be smaller to work.

[Corey]

Cleo curious where do you live? if in USA which state?

You have a 50/50 chance to drink polluted water that will make you sick it may not make you sick right away since they are chemical pollutants.

This is of ~46% of Minnesota waters were tested before funding was pulled to test and clean our waters. ~50% do not meet federal standards. around the ones that do not meet federal standards development is halted. This is unacceptable when as of 1990 Minnesota was recognized world wide as the lead conservation state.

Hope, yes
optimism, no

We have what the weather man is claiming to be smog the thing is we had zero smog last year. the smog is everywhere even where there is no traffic, no industry this is not normal.

People here are being mislead about what the haziness is from around here. This ticks me off a bit for it undermined the need to change our ways.

Most people are not willing to give up there creature comforts around here, they seem to rather die if they had, so business as usual. They even are trying to convince me to just enjoy whats left and go on as business as usual.
I cannot morally and ethically justify this action. I am torn internally between selfishness and selflessness.

agree that there are some tech needed but really what of home building? What will we use as building material trees are not a sustainable practice unless harvested every 75-100 years and leaving most of them there for habitat and co2 conversion.

Getting the population is going to be painful no matter how we do it. To many people want to live. It takes a long time to get people educated enough to not want to have children. If we go to a alternative social structure what will we do with the old? the old rely on investments in our current economics that is what they currently use so as not to need a large family oh then there is SSI which many of them will rely on to take care of them when the time comes as well who in the third world gets SSI???

:peace:

[Cleo]

Originally Posted by Corey

Cleo curious where do you live? if in USA which state?

Hope, yes
optimism, no

We have what the weather man is claiming to be smog the thing is we had zero smog last year. the smog is everywhere even where there is no traffic, no industry this is not normal.

Most people are not willing to give up there creature comforts around here, they seem to rather die if they had, so business as usual.

I live in the upper Midwest. Northern IL, WI, MN, and upper MI.

What a shame, to be without optimism.

Rochester sits in a valley. Any particulate matter floating around will settle there and stay during periods of high heat and humidity. They have had "smog" issues for years. It's nothing new.

I respectfully disagree. I see change all around me. For the unwashed masses, change is indeed difficult. Just because someone has an iPod or an SUV doesn't mean they aren't taking steps in other ways. I happen to like my iPod

We are only going to get anywhere with peaceful attitudes and open minds. I also think that productive, healthy discussion comes from agreeing to disagree