|
CSRwire, The Corporate Social Responsibility Newswire
7,979 members
Michael Hopkins
Would environmentalists prefer a planet with zero population?
Michael Hopkins
CEO & Founder CSRFI Executive Education, Academic & Businessman, Author/Speaker on CSR, Development, Employment
This seemingly flippant remark is actually a serious point. I have the impression when talking with some environmentalists (dare I say 'tree huggers'?) that they think that fewer, or even very many fewer, population numbers would turn the planet around. The nonsense that we would need three planets to survive at current consumption rates captures the imagination but is complete rubbish - the main model I looked at included neither technological progress nor price effects. Then half the population is already in dire poverty so we havent done a good job up to now. Yet I suspect that even in caveman times resources were scarce once the caveman had clubbed to death all the animals in his radius. Population growth will fall rapidly once couples see they can survive into old age without their children as their only means of support. Consequently the issue is not zero population but the use of resources - countries with zero population growth tend to consume very much more per capita than poorer ones.Believe it or not resources are plentiful we simply need to manage them better.
ones.believe
ones.believe
Like Comment (3) Unfollow Reply Privately2 days ago
Comments
3 comments
Peter Burgess
Founder/CEO at TrueValueMetrics developing Multi Dimension Impact Accounting
Michael ... well YES!
But your concluding observation that ' ... resources are plentiful we simply need to manage them better.' is, at best, too optimistic and seriously problematic.
There is no question that over the past few hundred years humankind has done some interesting things to improve standard of living and quality of life ... but in the process has also created something of a monster, and this monster is taking on a life of its own, and in all probability increasing the likelihood of some sort of 'tipping point' event that would not be good.
The system changes that are needed are not going to be simple ... but they are vital.
I argue that the the enterprise focus of financial and economic analysis worked quite well when the scale of economic activity was rather small relative to natural resources and the environment, but it no longer works in our greater interest when the scale of economic activity is essentially bigger than nature.
A completely new analytical perspective is needed ... one that puts people at the center, and optimizes so that quality of life is maximum with a minimum of resource depletion and environmental degradation. A singular focus on economic activity that results in money profit to the exclusion of all the important investments needed that only deliver social good without delivering much profit is what we have, and it absolutely has to change.
This is NOT about redistributing wealth, but about a very much fairer outcome where everyone has the potential to have a decent quality of life.
The money centric system encourages the wrong things for a future that works. If technology is mainly used to make the money system more efficient while ignoring all the other big things that are important for quality of life, we are in trouble.
I agree that less people is not the solution ... but people have to get engaged in some serious behavior change in order to the future to work!
Peter Burgess - TrueValueMetrics
Multi Dimension Impact Accounting
Delete 1 day ago
Michael Hopkins
Michael
Michael Hopkins
CEO & Founder CSRFI Executive Education, Academic & Businessman, Author/Speaker on CSR, Development, Employment
You raise many contentious points but let me just take one. You state 'the scale of economic activity is essentially bigger than nature'. What are the metrics for that?
Like Reply privately Flag as inappropriate 2 hours ago
Peter Burgess
Peter Burgess
Founder/CEO at TrueValueMetrics developing Multi Dimension Impact Accounting
Michael ... perhaps the biggest energy issue on the planet is the shortage of firewood. Most of the world's poor are now having to spend much more time collecting firewood for cooking than at any time in the past. We are talking about hours rather than just some minutes. Put another way, the wood that used to be within a couple of hundred years is now several miles away.
This may not be the metric that you were looking for ... but it is very relevant for maybe as many as 2 billion people.
With respect to the answer for the serious question that you pose ... I will put together a brief to answer this in a responsible way. It is an important question.
Peter Burgess - TrueValueMetrics
Multi Dimension Impact Accounting
Delete Edit Comment 14 minutes left to edit
|
