Should there be limits to an individual's property in society?

[phyllo]

I do know nuclear physicists (so can find out each time in the news hype about "fusion closer to practical" << note: that would provide a solution to sustainability at our current level of human population >>

Sustainability is incompatible with consumerism.

Fusion would slow down climate change and reduce air pollution.

But people would increase the manufacture of products/junk, dumping garbage everywhere and taking over natural areas until ...

Well, you get the idea.

The innovation which is required, is an end to consumerism.

[MikeNovack]

Sustainability is incompatible with consumerism.

The innovation which is required, is an end to consumerism.

Yes, absolutely, the consumerism that devours the environment has to stop. But please note that the cost/value of something not necessarily coming from it's environmental cost.

Four sticks of wood, some linen or cotton canvass, some mineral or vegetable oil, and an assortment of small amounts of minerals. Imagine two sets of those, side by side. Equal environmental cost. market? But cost/value in the consumer's market? That depends on the skill and reputation of the artists who created those two oil paintings. Unrelated to the environmental cost.

We CAN still have "consumerism"/"keep up with the Jones's" as long as the increase in value of things consumed is from non-material factors. Our tastes for what we consume has to change.

[Impenitent]

Sustainability is incompatible with consumerism.

The innovation which is required, is an end to consumerism.

Yes, absolutely, the consumerism that devours the environment has to stop. But please note that the cost/value of something not necessarily coming from it's environmental cost.

Four sticks of wood, some linen or cotton canvass, some mineral or vegetable oil, and an assortment of small amounts of minerals. Imagine two sets of those, side by side. Equal environmental cost. market? But cost/value in the consumer's market? That depends on the skill and reputation of the artists who created those two oil paintings. Unrelated to the environmental cost.

We CAN still have "consumerism"/"keep up with the Jones's" as long as the increase in value of things consumed is from non-material factors. Our tastes for what we consume has to change.

society's taste must change

your governmental overlords have decreed that you must enjoy the overlord's waste

utopia

-Imp

[phyllo]

We CAN still have "consumerism"/"keep up with the Jones's" as long as the increase in value of things consumed is from non-material factors. Our tastes for what we consume has to change.

Thank God. What would we do without empty competition?

[MikeNovack]

Thank God. What would we do without empty competition?

Human societies have always had this sort of thing, competition for "status" (something we share with chimps and bonobos).

"Empty" is perhaps the wrong term to use just because not necessarily involving material goods. Why should unnecessary/excess goods be less "empty"?

Oh, and BTW, I was NOT meaning to imply that being able to harness fusion would be enough for a sustainable solution with our current population AND our reckless consumption. Just a solution with out current population AND an end to our over consumption << just ending our our consumption not enough to support our current population without the energy from fusion.
PLUS --- I agree with my nuclear physics contacts when they tell me (forget fusion; will always be just 20 years from now. That what we are seeing about advances are "hype", maybe shake the money tree to fund more research but ore than an order of magnitude insufficient.

[phyllo]

"Empty" is perhaps the wrong term to use just because not necessarily involving material goods. Why should unnecessary/excess goods be less "empty"?

"Empty" meaning without any value. In fact, likely having negative value.

[Immanuel Can]

Sustainability is incompatible with consumerism.

Sustainability is also incompatible with life.

Everything uses energy. Everything is subject to entropy. The same is true for animals, for plants, and for the lowest life forms.

If you want a completely "sustainable" world, it can only be a dead one.

Meanwhile, all our "sustainablility" strategies -- recycling, windmills, electric cars, cloth diapers, batteries, solar panels -- also pollute, and often in even more serious and unsustainable ways than our previous measures. So we're killing the planet faster, in the name of "sustainability."

It's all very ironic.

[MikeNovack]

"Empty" is perhaps the wrong term to use just because not necessarily involving material goods. Why should unnecessary/excess goods be less "empty"?

"Empty" meaning without any value. In fact, likely having negative value.

We humans are social animals. Important for the individual in a group of social animals is being able to identify the "status" of other individuals, especially in relation to oneself. Going to be very disruptive to the group if constantly being "fought out" (redetermined, because not immediately known). So not "empty" as in serving no purpose. A group of humans wasting time in constant redetermination of status would fare poorly in competition with groups that had markers.

ONE of our current difficulties is having drifted into a situation where the markers are material goods, things with an environmental cost. Doesn't have to be that way. If you think ONLY material goods can serve as markers of social status (anything else "empty") that represents the extent to which you have been taught this to be the case. Often argued "but when it is material goods they at least have utility value" (in addition to serving as status markers). This ignores the reality that the marginal utility of more/"swankier" is essentially zero for high status individuals. It's an illusion, utility value. How many "hummers" NEVER leave the paved road. They have utility value only when "off road".

[phyllo]

Sustainability is also incompatible with life.

Everything uses energy. Everything is subject to entropy. The same is true for animals, for plants, and for the lowest life forms.

If you want a completely "sustainable" world, it can only be a dead one.

No. Life continuously recycles.

It's potentially sustainable until the sun dies.

But it's not sustainable at the rate humans are currently consuming.

[FlashDangerpants]

Sustainability is incompatible with consumerism.

The innovation which is required, is an end to consumerism.

Yes, absolutely, the consumerism that devours the environment has to stop. But please note that the cost/value of something not necessarily coming from it's environmental cost.

Four sticks of wood, some linen or cotton canvass, some mineral or vegetable oil, and an assortment of small amounts of minerals. Imagine two sets of those, side by side. Equal environmental cost. market? But cost/value in the consumer's market? That depends on the skill and reputation of the artists who created those two oil paintings. Unrelated to the environmental cost.

We CAN still have "consumerism"/"keep up with the Jones's" as long as the increase in value of things consumed is from non-material factors. Our tastes for what we consume has to change.

society's taste must change

your governmental overlords have decreed that you must enjoy the overlord's waste

utopia

-Imp

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y-NBzRs ... rt_radio=1
Swimming in the slurry - Burning in the heat
Wind blown is this weather - I eat what you secrete
I climb this highest derrick - This circus has no prayer
No UFO to save us - And do we really care

What's it all about - They scream and then they shout (Do we really care)
Don't ask me - Cause I don't know
What's it all about - They scream and then they shout
Don't blame me - I told you so

[MikeNovack]

Sustainability is also incompatible with life.

Everything uses energy. Everything is subject to entropy. The same is true for animals, for plants, and for the lowest life forms.
If you want a completely "sustainable" world, it can only be a dead one.

Meanwhile, all our "sustainablility" strategies -- recycling, windmills, electric cars, cloth diapers, batteries, solar panels -- also pollute, and often in even more serious and unsustainable ways than our previous measures. So we're killing the planet faster, in the name of "sustainability."

IC, What life forms do is LOCALLY reduce entropy (in effect, exporting this). They are not violating the laws of thermodynamics. And yes, the universe will eventually run down. But the sun will have gone nova first in some billions of years.

We who talk about "sustainability" mean on a more modest time scale. We don't mean on a galactic time scale or even on a geologic times scale. We humans have only had a written history for a few thousand years. How about we get through the next few thousand? At the moment, we are facing a crisis for the next couple hundred,

I understand, for you what is valued is the eternal life after death you have faith in. Not living in the here and now. I do not expect your co-operation in trying to work for a sustainable future. I expect you to be part of the problem.

[phyllo]

We humans are social animals. Important for the individual in a group of social animals is being able to identify the "status" of other individuals, especially in relation to oneself. Going to be very disruptive to the group if constantly being "fought out" (redetermined, because not immediately known). So not "empty" as in serving no purpose. A group of humans wasting time in constant redetermination of status would fare poorly in competition with groups that had markers.

What is the purpose or value of "status"?

Why would it have to be "redetermined"?

What is my relation to someone with "higher status" or "lower status" than me?

[Immanuel Can]

Sustainability is also incompatible with life.

Everything uses energy. Everything is subject to entropy. The same is true for animals, for plants, and for the lowest life forms.

If you want a completely "sustainable" world, it can only be a dead one.

No. Life continuously recycles.

That's naive.

It's not sustainable, because energy tends from a state of higher order to one of order, and does so all the time. That's a scientific law, not something one can avoid with some "measure".

Meanwhile, competition of certain kinds can be the best thing for everybody...including for less-damaging solutions to problems. The most efficient solution has the lowest energy-cost. The one with the lowest energy-cost wins. I don't suppose you'd be at all opposed, for example, to car manufacturers "competing" to see who could be the first to produce a car that runs on hydrogen. Not only would that open up an abundant, nearly free fuel supply for everybody, but would be immeasurably less polluting than running on fossil fuels.

Consumerism is a problem. But competition can simply mean, "competing to make things better." How else do you think our technologies advance?

[Immanuel Can]

Sustainability is also incompatible with life.

Everything uses energy. Everything is subject to entropy. The same is true for animals, for plants, and for the lowest life forms.
If you want a completely "sustainable" world, it can only be a dead one.

Meanwhile, all our "sustainablility" strategies -- recycling, windmills, electric cars, cloth diapers, batteries, solar panels -- also pollute, and often in even more serious and unsustainable ways than our previous measures. So we're killing the planet faster, in the name of "sustainability."

IC, What life forms do is LOCALLY reduce entropy

That isn't true. All they can do is make the rate of entropy go slower or faster. There's no stopping entropy.

We who talk about "sustainability" mean on a more modest time scale.

I don't think most people who talk about "sustainabilty" have any idea at all what they're talking about. If they did, they would not advocate recycling, wind 'farms,' Malthusianism, solar panels, etc.

I do not expect your co-operation in trying to work for a sustainable future.

Well, what you should do is start expecting your "sustainability" comrades to stop advocating measures that make things worse, and calling them "green" when they do more damage than what they replace. But it seems none of the "sustainability" people believe in things like truth, or honesty, or efficiency...or actually saving the environment. They just believe in virtue signalling while the earth turns brown.

[phyllo]

It's not sustainable, because energy tends from a state of higher order to one of order, and does so all the time. That's a scientific law, not something one can avoid with some "measure".

That's just nonsense babble.

Meanwhile, competition of certain kinds can be the best thing for everybody...including for less-damaging solutions to problems. The most efficient solution has the lowest energy-cost. The one with the lowest energy-cost wins. I don't suppose you'd be at all opposed, for example, to car manufacturers "competing" to see who could be the first to produce a car that runs on hydrogen. Not only would that open up an abundant, nearly free fuel supply for everybody, but would be immeasurably less polluting than running on fossil fuels.

Competition can be valuable. I didn't say that all competition is empty.

Hydrogen isn't free.