http://www.sustainability2030.com/sustainabilityclips/Ideas, Resources, Events, AlertsSustainabilty 2030 (1992-2009)en-USSquarespace Site Server v5.9.2 (http://www.squarespace.com/)Scott JacksonFri, 10 Oct 2008 11:27:49 +0000http://www.sustainability2030.com/sustainabilityclips/2008/10/10/the-bad-economy-is-good-for-the-environment.html#comments143768:1310936:comment/2125321It is clear that the author really has no grasp of either economics or ecology. Every animal on this plant pollutes it environment locally. The planet has evolved systems, we call them ecosystems, to deal with those pollutants, and every animal on the planet over exploits its environment. This is why there are die-offs of large numbers of animals periodically. An example of this is Elephants in East Africa who every few years destroy most of the major vegetation leading to their own starvation. While being confined by human settle exacerbates the problem it does not create it; it is inherent in the natural world. There are many examples of this even in the open ocean. Consumption, by humans, and the advance of technology driven by yes economics is the only way we learn how to do more with less. You cannot conserve yourself to sustainability, you can only invent yourself to sustainability and that requires an incentive structure. That incentive structure is optimally provided by yes economics and the dreaded profit motive. If you doubt this just take a look at how amazingly polluted the Soviet Union was from 1917 to its implosion. Economic growth isn't your enemy it is you only tool for finding a solution. If we turn the clock back technologically to the middle ages a huge portion of the human population will have to die off in order to make that particular technological regime work and it too will be unsustainable despite being all natural. It would require the worlds population to be a small fraction of its present size, and to do that you need to decide who dies in order to get there.

]]>