Earth 3.0 – The Sustainable Planet
- 5
- Add a Comment
The article in Scientific American called The Top Ten Myths of Sustainability brings focus on the fact that, for people who are into speaking of revisions, the sustainable Earth, must be known as 3.0. The first Earth was the one of prehistory to the beginnings of the Industrial Revolution, where we, as modelers of the planet, began to change it in ways that were beyond our ken. The second Earth is the one we are in, post-Industrial Revolution, and beginning to see the changes we cannot undo easily, if at all. Now, the third Earth is the one where we hopefully realize that for the good of all, the lives we lead can, and must, change for the better, while allowing them to continue for a much larger number than thought possible just a few decades ago.
One of the major thrusts of the article is that though closely related, Green and Sustainable are not synonymous.
Another myth is that sustainability is all about the environment.
The sustainability movement itself—not just the word—also dates to the Brundtland commission report. Originally, its focus was on finding ways to let poor nations catch up to richer ones in terms of standard of living. That goal meant giving disadvantaged countries better access to natural resources, including water, energy and food—all of which come, one way or another, from the environment. “The economy,” says Anthony Cortese, founder and president of the sustainability education organization Second Nature, “is a wholly owned subsidiary of the biosphere. The biosphere provides everything that makes life possible, assimilates our waste or converts it back into something we can use.”
The myth listed as number five, right in the middle, and rightly at the core, is that sustainability is too expensive. In both senses this is completely untrue. If you do not move to sustainability, the result is the end of the human race as we know it, and the other sense, of everyday costs, is also untrue, as small changes bring about large ones; the small changes are simple and can be done without thinking, once a choice has been made.
The sixth myth is the one that most red-blooded Americans rail the most against. It is the belief that the life we lead must be a more meager one, with fewer luxuries, and much more altruism. (That last part is a big stumbling block to many – what a surprise for them when they find it is not a needed part of the plan!)
The rest of the myths are not so easily dispelled, but are worth pondering, irrespective of who you might be.
whitespace
§
whitespace
whitespace
whitespace
Quote of the Day:
Do first what you dread the most.
–Anonymous
`
5 Comments
Buffet
May 11th, 2009
at 4:18am
Very informative. Thanks.
Chris
May 11th, 2009
at 10:33am
Speaking in the terms used in this post, I don’t believe we are in the “post-Industrial” era.
Sure, manufacturing (in general) does not occur in the United States, but that does not mean that it’s not occuring…It’s taking place, in Asia.
So I’m not sure “post-Industrial Revolution” is a term that applies now, or ever can apply, unless people decide to live by standards before the production of goods were available to the masses.
If anything, much of the world still lives by the standards of bribery, tyranny, and corruption - rather than the spirit of entrepreneurship. So the Industrial Revolution still has a ways to go…
the oracle
May 11th, 2009
at 11:06am
Chris, the term post - Industrial Revoluton is used to indicate that the manufacture of things, with no regard for the waste products left behind, or the overall efficiency of the process is coming to an end.
Also, I don’t think of the terms bribery, tyranny, and corruption as indicative of any specific arc of time - they have always been, and barring a major change in man himself, will continue.
Greene.Consulting
May 11th, 2009
at 1:38pm
Very interesting. I would agree in much that we are in Era of “post-Industrial Revolution” but i think new kind is come as we need to clean up that which we screwed up. the green movement has is some right and some what wrong as i see it. Its not the earth its self that needs saving its the biosphere. that makes up that in which we live in as when this changes too much we will die off and the earth will just live on under need renter We have the means to do this by changing the what a product is made it just greed vs cost profits vs death ..companies would rather build great wealth now than see the long term effects of their greed.
If every oil company took $5 billion of the money made and put in a bank account to held for 6 month and just spent the interest on cleaner way to do thing they would have in a year more money work in a better way to product the thing we need to live with and to find way to replace that which is killing us (its the people not the the planet that is dying) We need some way to take the wast and turn it into new thing we can use we need to stop thinking in terms of wealth and in the terms of life. as what good does it do to make ton of money if you are not going to be around to enjoy or spend it? Spending for a sustainability future isn’t that had if you are willing to do so.. it just you have to be willing to give up some thing now to have it later..big rich companies don’t get it . they will but let hope it won’t be too late.
GC
Earth 3.0 ? The Sustainable Planet - Earth Blog
May 12th, 2009
at 6:21pm
[...] This article is featured on the custom Earth Blog at Auto-Blogs.us. [...]