Ad blocker detected: Our website is made possible by displaying online advertisements to our visitors. Disable your ad blocker to continue using our website.
MikeNovack wrote: ↑Sat May 09, 2026 11:42 pm
The fundamental equation for sustainabiity is usually shown as:
Total ecological production = per capita standard of living (consumption) times number of persons (population)
But are we humans really entitled to the entire eological production of the planet? None left for the rest of Nature? So I propose the ethical question for us to discuss. What fraction of the total ecological production should we humans be taking and thus what fraction left for the rest of Nature? Sure, there are SOME species that do well in the human modified landscape, even thrive in it. But most do not.
I suspect that we have a wide range of opinions on this, because of course, there are implications for the maximum product per capita consumption times population. If we choose to leave a fraction for wild Nature, then that product is reduced.
I'll start off by proposing 50%, that we humans take half and leave half for the others. After all, we are only one species among many. The planet doesn't belong JUST to us.
To decide on a percentage is folly. The best course is to understand the bigger picture, and play steward/shepherd for the entirety of our symbiotic biosphere, watching and balancing as it stands the test of time.
