No, but we there are many finite resources which can be recycled indefinitely. The components of food, for instance. Or construction materials like metal.
Printable View
No, but we there are many finite resources which can be recycled indefinitely. The components of food, for instance. Or construction materials like metal.
Thankyou....Quote:
Originally Posted by Xei
Thank you what? Is the Earth an isolated system? No. Is globalisation thus inherently unsustainable? No.
When did I ever say that the material on Earth is infinite? When did you say it wasn't? And what is the relevance anyway?
Please try not to lose track of the conversation.
Looks like you're the one losing track of the conversation with all those questions.
Globalisation is unsustainable because WE DON'T HAVE INFINITE RESOURCES.
End of story.
Yes one country can sustain itself, because that isolated portion of land has obviously come to some balance with how everything recycles in nature. Otherwise it would be dead by now and no one could live there.
If you're shipping off all your resources to another country, you are ruining that.
i.e it is not sustainable.
Globalisation doesn't mean 'shipping off all your resources to another country'. Obviously that would cause everybody in your country to starve to death, for starters. It's a nonsense definition...
Globalisation is just the movement of goods on a global scale. This could mean, for instance, Florida and Italy exchanging oranges for grapes. This is beneficial because people in Italy get to eat grapes and drink orange juice instead of just having grapes, and Florida gets both instead of just having oranges; and there's nothing unsustainable about it.
Except that they would have to grow more of their respective fruits to trade. Which means destroying more forests to create more farmland. Which means further unbalancing of the ecosystem there.
It really doesn't have to create an imbalance, just do it in a way that doesn't abuse nature. Not really that hard, though admittedly it isn't often isn't done that way. But that's just because people are completely out of touch with what they eat and what products they use. They really don't care where it came from or how it was made as long as it's cheap. That's the problem, not trade. I really think people need to put more blame on lazy selfish consumers.
...no it doesn't. It doesn't require the creation of any more new farmland than what the population already subsisted on.Quote:
Originally Posted by tommo
They can only be recycled indefinitely if we don't add linings, bonding agents, or tamper with them... unfortunately for aluminum, we DO that stuff, so we lose some recyclable aluminum every time we recycle it, and it goes to landfill.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xei
We should probably work on that sometime... (Although the nutrient cycle for food works pretty well... the earth recycles it all for us! [but we need other species to do their part... which is bad when people use anti-microbial soaps that end up washing into their septic tank, killing the microbes that normally break down their waste. Oops.])
Yes, clearly we can do better. Although short of firing it into space, you're never really going to lose it; the atoms are still on Earth. Those things aren't recycled because it's not economical; not because it's not possible. If you're willing to use your resources of entropy, you can get it back.
So do the Italians need to eat less grapes then?Quote:
Originally Posted by Xei
I don't see how you can produce more on the same land, given they already use the best agricultural methods.
Unless you use hydroponics.
If they're eating oranges... :/
Oranges make good wine.
We already produce enough food to feed everyone. But if everyone can eat, food loses its value.Quote:
Originally Posted by tommo
But I would like to see produce more localized, I have to agree with you there.
In general though, I agree with Xei that globalization is inevitable. Conglomeration is part of evolution and it increases in time, not decreases. Ants do not evolve back into self-motivated individuals.
We just need to make sure globalization is handled fairly and not used to exploit people. Right now globalization takes the form of loans putting developing countries into debt so a centralized group of multinational financial institutions can monopolize anything in sight. Or alternatively, it takes the form of richer nations subsidizing their industries to out compete the developing industries. It also enables industries to take advantage of the poorest regions in the world by moving their factories there.
We easily produce enough food for everyone in the world. The biggest problem we currently have is the food distribution system, and actually getting food to everyone in the world. Though if more food was produce locally that would help a lot. In the future we might end up growing more with hydroponics as well. They already are using that a lot in other countries. The US doesn't bother because we have a lot of farm land but eventually we will start switching over to it as well, since its far more efficient.
Sustainably?Quote:
Originally Posted by Alric
Bearing in mind that for a Westerner, 10 Joules of oil goes into each Joule of food you eat.
And the farmland gets destroyed because of mono-cropping.
Well, that's a current problem, not an inherent one. There's no reason we couldn't decide tomorrow to start rotating crops, and continue to feed everybody. I'm asking if it's possible that we could decide tomorrow to stop using oil, and still (theoretically) feed everybody.
The question's about how much energy the Earth receives, and how much can practically be used by humans.
We most definitely could do it sustainably, and even more efficiently than we do now. We don't currently do it because we are lazy and energy is still relatively cheap and water is relatively plentiful. It would be a pretty big shock if we no longer had oil and had to switch over night, which could happen if people lack the foresight to start moving to more sustainable practices now, but there are some already doing it. The US is just slow though, because we got it nice and there doesn't seem to be any urgency.
Soil depletion, Dead zones and other destructive consequences of are a result of farms coping with our anachronistic agronomic structure. The pursuit of efficiency has overwhelmed the pursuit of sustainability. Many farmers are still researching sustainable methods and making a living selling locally to restaurants. It would be nice to see a structure in place that would allow this sustainable research to become mainstream practice.
This is part of what we're working on in one of my sustainability courses; we have been contacting local organizations and companies/restaurants that serve food and connecting them with local farmers and catering companies that use locally-sourced foods. They have more seasonal menus to keep things fresh and local. It's happening more and more, if you find the right catering companies and restaurants you can get this. (While I don't care much for Chipotle's food, they do this well; each location head works with local farms to bring in local meats and vegetables. It works for them, although the price for food is a couple dollars more and the profit margin is a little less, people are willing to pay for it.)Quote:
Originally Posted by Omnis Dei
This is great. And is along the lines of what I was talking about. Using what the area will allow.Quote:
Originally Posted by ThePreserver
Instead of trying to still get a certain thing even when it is not being produced by the land you live on. Which will obviously inevitably lead to waste of resources and depletion of soil quality etc.
Work with nature. Until we can completely figure out how to subvert it, without harming it.