Sustainability Calculation

[doodle]

So, I was doing a calculation today that I found kind of shocking.

There are approximately 150,000,000 square kilometers of land on the earth, the rest (70% of the earths surface) is water.

There are approximately 7,000,000,000 people living on the earth.

If you divide 150,000,000 by 7,000,000,000 you get .02. This means that if you divide up all of the earths land (a large part of which is not habitable or arable such as deserts or mountain ranges) each person gets 2% of a square kilometer.

There are 247 acres in a square kilometer. So 2% of 247 acres is a little less than 5 acres per person at the present world population. With 10 billion people (Earth's projected population by 2050) each person's share of the earth's land would drop to around 3.5 acres per person. Of course, humans are not the only species on this planet. There are 25 million other species that we would have to share this land with in order for the present ecosystem to continue to function as it currently does.

Herein lies the issue of sustainability. If you think that the system of growth based capitalism can increase every humans living standards to that of an average American, ask yourself if you think that you could sustain your necessities (food, clothing, energy, waste, water) on around 3.5 acres? Now what about a 2500 square foot house...a new car every 5-10 years, vacations around the world, a garage full of junk...and on and on?

I think the numbers are glaringly obvious that our present economic model based on exponential growth is rapidly butting up against the limitations of a finite world. The solution I believe is that humans urgently need to begin to devise systems that take into account the long term sustainability of our lifestyles. It is my prediction that this issue of creating sustainable systems will dominate the next 20 years of our lives. I'm just waiting for the politicians to catch on to reality as they continue talk about needing to return America's economy to 5 percent annual growth rates....

[BearBones]

I'm just waiting for the politicians to catch on to reality as they continue talk about needing to return America's economy to 5 percent annual growth rates....

Nicely illustrated point. Two things have to happen before this becomes policy, IMO:
That there there is a looming crisis with a limited time horizon for reversal has to become widely understood and accepted. Unfortunately, this is currently fringe thought, even for people of above average intelligence.
Politicians need to implement policy based on the long term interest of our country and the world, even if difficult. Right now, electability demands short term, parochial interests and easy solutions.

Where do you find your cause for optimism?

[doodle]

There is a movement among academics and scientists to bring attention to this problem. Luckily tomorrow's leaders are being educated by individuals who understand the importance of this issue.

I am also encouraged by foundations such as this: http://longnow.org/

I think this issue and plans to deal with it will begin to really take hold once the older generation of politicians and citizens starts to pass on. I frankly don't think many of them are capable of adjusting their views to our present reality.

[MediumTex]

Every time the phenomenon doodle is describing occurs in nature it follows a predictable pattern of an unexpected windfall of food energy or other resources occurring, which leads to a spike in population WAY in excess of the carrying capacity of the underlying ecosystem, which is followed by a crisis as a shortage of the least abundant necessity needed by the population triggers an abrupt and dramatic die-off of the species in question to a level far below the starting population.  From there, the population tends to gradually grow back to sustainable pre-windfall population levels.

What humans have done in the last few hundred years has been to use several sophisticated methods of dragging out the process described above, which is both a testament to our remarkable intelligence and adaptability compared to other species and a cautionary note about what might lie in our future.

William Catton's "Overshoot" is the definitive work on this topic.  If you are interested in the overall structure of our society and how durable it may be in the coming hundreds or thousands of years, I strongly recommend it.  It's really outstanding.  You don't have to agree with his analysis or conclusions to be impressed by his presentation of the issues.  For me, reading "Overshoot" was one of the most intense experiences I have ever had from simply reading a book.  If you do find that Catton's conclusions follow from his analysis, reading the book can be sort of the literary equivalent of getting hit up-side the head with a boat oar.

[stone]

doodle, its a good point. I guess each of us needs to take fewer flights etc. I drive 20000 miles a year which is pretty hard to justify I guess. A truly stunning program about people living at high density is
http://www.channel4.com/programmes/kevi ... ing-it/4od

[doodle]

I really hope Dharavi isn't the model for our future world. A couple of my friends just came back from a year in India. Overall, they weren't too enthusiastic about returning.

On a tangential note, if anyone wants to read a fantastic book about India (supposedly based on a true story) I really recommend Shantaram by Gregory David Roberts. One of the best books that I have read in a long, long time. The ex-con writer has a fantastic gift.  Here is a bit on CNN about it http://youtu.be/bu5p5A-CB64

[MediumTex]

I think that all of us are incredibly lucky to be living in the times we are living in.  I think that in 1,000 years people will look back on the 1900-2050 period and marvel at the way we lived.

I think that visiting the Moon several times will be viewed by future generations the way we view the Egyptian pyramids today. 

In a future low energy world, the idea of burning that much fuel to visit the Moon (or to visit anywhere that is not essential) will likely seem inconceivable.

[stone]

Doodle, that program about Dharavi is really very very good. It shows the good side as well as the horrific. It actually cheered me no end. It shows how decent and joyful people can be in any circumstance.
I have read Shantaram too. I really like India and Pakistan but I am put off returning by the "Dehli belly" phenomenon . Also I do think flights are a fast track to bringing the apocalypse closer. My parents go to India to go to the dentist 

[doodle]

Okay...here is another sustainability calculation......this particular one came to me in a room where I tend to do a lot of deep thinking.

After washing up, I dried my hands with two paper towels from the dispenser. The thought came across my mind about what if 7 billion other humans went through the exact same process of going to the bathroom. How many paper towels would that amount to....in terms of size.

Well, the two paper towels together measured about 1mm in thickness when stacked.

If 7 billion people dried their hands with two paper towels each it would create a stack of paper towels that would be 7 billion millimeters high. If you divide that by 1000, you get a stack about 7,000,000 meters high. If you divide that again by 1000, you get a stack of paper towels about 7000 kilometers high.

So what does that amount to in terms of distance? Well it is about 4500 kilometers from New York to San Francisco...so the stack of paper towels (stacked one on top of another) would reach well past that. In fact, the stack of paper towels when laid out would almost reach to the shores of Hawaii!!!

This quick procedure of wiping and drying my hands which took all of 5 seconds, amounted to a stack of paper (when multiplied across the world population) that reaches across the continental United States nearly two times over.

My resolution? I will now dry my hands on my shirt.

Doing these sort of calculations I think is one way of getting people to realize how the consequences of their individual decisions are magnified enormously when multiplied by 7 billion people. It is in these terms that humans need to begin to think. What might seem insignificant on the scale of an individual, is colossal when multiplied by 7 billion other inhabitants on this Earth. People's daily decisions should be subjected to the question of "is what I am about to do sustainable if 7 billion other people were to do exactly the same thing?" If the answer is no, then maybe that action should be modified.

***Based on studies, 1/3 of people don't wash up at all after using the bathroom....maybe they aren't dirty or lazy....just environmentally concerned.

[MediumTex]

My resolution? I will now dry my hands on my shirt.

Won't that just mean a stack of shirts that goes from New York to Hawaii, rather than a stack of paper towels?

What about the people who work at the paper towel companies?  Where will they find jobs if your initiative destroys their market?  What if as a result of your "dry your hands on your shirt" campaign the paper towel companies were converted into "paper shirt" manufacturers?  Would that be a net improvement or not?

[Tortoise]

My resolution? I will now dry my hands on my shirt.

Drying your hands on your shirt... I like it! It could be the next big fashion trend:

***Based on studies, 1/3 of people don't wash up at all after using the bathroom....maybe they aren't dirty or lazy....just environmentally concerned.

The late comedian George Carlin may have been an environmentalist and didn't even realize it

(< 1 minute clip)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gEyVvM4sTUc

Speaking of sustainability, Sam Kinnison--another late comedian--had kind of an interesting take on world hunger:

(2-minute clip)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vN7ehccspao

[doodle]

Won't that just mean a stack of shirts that goes from New York to Hawaii, rather than a stack of paper towels?

Not unless you throw your shirt out every time is gets slightly damp.

Drying your hands on your shirt... I like it! It could be the next big fashion trend:

Judging by her shirt drying technique (maybe thats drool...actually) and the fact that she also forget to rebutton her pants after taking care of business, this lady looks like she is a few sandwiches short of a picnic to begin with....

What about the people who work at the paper towel companies?  Where will they find jobs if your initiative destroys their market?  What if as a result of your "dry your hands on your shirt" campaign the paper towel companies were converted into "paper shirt" manufacturers?  Would that be a net improvement or not?

MT, I'll let your own quote below answer your own question:

Remember that modern capitalism is the search for ever-more efficient ways of converting the maximum amount of natural resources into garbage.  We call that "progress" and when it slows down we call it a recession.

I think my overall point (which maybe got lost in my particular choice of example) was that a cultural change in consciousness could have an impact on inducing positive environmental change if humans were trained to think not just strictly in individual terms, but rather as to the result of their actions when multiplied across 7 billion others. When someone throws away a paper towel, this seemingly insignificant amount of trash is converted into a veritable mountain when multiplied 7 billion times. What if humans (very trainable creatures) were brought up to see this?

Our society and environment (especially in America) train us to think strictly in individual terms, but the world we live in is impacted by the summed result of our collective actions.

With regards to the poor individuals at the paper towel company, I think I have heard this same argument when it comes to every industry that faces extinction. In a resource constrained world, (where unfortunately, negative environmental effects are not built into the cost structure) it is up to individuals and governments to save the day. If there are no natural market forces to enact change, then humans must work with societal and cultural values. If you doubt the ability of cultural pressures to induce humans to make a simple change like finding an alternative for drying their hands, explain how these cultural pressures are powerful enough to be able to convince masses of people to kill their own neighbors or even brothers in a civil war?

[Reub]

Is drying your hands on her shirt an option?

[MediumTex]

I think my overall point (which maybe got lost in my particular choice of example) was that a cultural change in consciousness could have an impact on inducing positive environmental change if humans were trained to think not just strictly in individual terms, but rather as to the result of their actions when multiplied across 7 billion others. When someone throws away a paper towel, this seemingly insignificant amount of trash is converted into a veritable mountain when multiplied 7 billion times. What if humans (very trainable creatures) were brought up to see this?

I think that such a change in collective consciousness would be nice, but isn't that basically like you and me getting together and saying "you know, if we had made the world, here is the way we would have done it."  It can be a stimulating exercise, but it normally doesn't change the way the world actually is.

As far as improvements in bathroom routines in the hopes of improving the world, that reminds me of a story I heard from the son of a man I used to work with.  His son was in the Peace Corps in Madagascar and when he first arrived in the country he was full of optimism about all of the good he was going to do.  Shortly after arriving, he was sitting outside a restaurant near the beach early one morning admiring the ocean view when he saw a man walking on the beach.  He said that the man walking across the idyllic scene reminded him of why he was there--to help these people in any way that he could.  In his fog of idealism, he said it was like seeing an actor walk onto a stage and he was the director.

As he sat there in his idealistic reverie imagining all of the good he was going to do for these noble savages, he said that the man stopped suddenly and then without a shred of self-consciousness dropped his pants and began defecating in the sand.  The jolt of the sudden revision to what he was seeing was just starting to settle in when the man finished, and then to his surprise the man stepped forward a few paces and kicked sand onto his feces like a cat in a litterbox would, before proceeding on his way like nothing unusual had happened.

As it sank in that this beach (and maybe many beaches) were basically giant human litterboxes, his enthusiasm for the ocean view waned a bit.  Many months later he said that he came to see the beach poop episode as symbolic of his whole Madagascar experience, as he realized that there were so many screwed up things about that country that one well-intentioned American was unlikely to change anything for the better (though he did say that the locals seemed very happy to steal his stuff every chance they got, which might have helped improve their individual situations in some small way).

What made me think of that story was the discussion above of how to reduce the environmental impact of bathroom functions.  Maybe the guy pooping on the beach was actually using a very advanced environmentally friendly technique and my co-worker's son just wasn't sophisticated enough to realize that what he was witnessing was, from an ecological perspective, perhaps a much better way of evacuating the bowels--no wasted water, no wasted paper, not even a wet shirt.

With regards to the poor individuals at the paper towel company, I think I have heard this same argument when it comes to every industry that faces extinction. In a resource constrained world, (where unfortunately, negative environmental effects are not built into the cost structure) it is up to individuals and governments to save the day. If there are no natural market forces to enact change, then humans must work with societal and cultural values. If you doubt the ability of cultural pressures to induce humans to make a simple change like finding an alternative for drying their hands, explain how these cultural pressures are powerful enough to be able to convince masses of people to kill their own neighbors or even brothers in a civil war?

The cultural pressures that you are describing that make people want to kill each other are very different from the cultural pressures that might make people want to change the way they use the bathroom.  In the former case, you are talking about instincts toward tribalism that are older than the hills, while in the latter case you are talking about an impulse that arises from a very enlightened person who lives in a very prosperous and stable society.  I don't know if it's realistic to think that one could somehow be transformed into the other. 

For example, I wouldn't want to be the guy to approach a group of these opium-addicted Afghan hillbilly Taliban mercenaries and explain to them that what they really need to do is lay down their weapons and put down the opium pipe and start drying their hands on their shirts after going to the bathroom and this would lead to positive changes in their society.

***

Ultimately, though, maybe you and I are really just two different faces of the same person at different stages of life, since I remember a time when I felt exactly the way you do now about many things. 

As Winston Churchill once said, "Show me a young conservative and I'll show you someone with no heart.  Show me an old liberal and I'll show you someone with no brains." 

[Gosso]

Doodle,

Have you heard of Jacque Fresco and The Venus Project?  It sounds like it would be right up your alley.  I find it fascinating.  It's pretty hard to explain so I'll let YouTube do it for me (only 3 minute clip):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=68Y363-gPX8

Basically it is a society where dollar-signs are removed from everything, and instead we run our society and economy based on natural resources.  It's called a Resource Based Economy.  Here is another YouTube clip on this topic (18 minutes):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4mkRFCtl2MI

It all sounds very socialist, super sexy, and unrealistic, but I hold out hope that somehow this could happen.  We need technology to advance further if this is even going to be a possibility.  We'll also need plenty of high quality engineers and scientists to work out the details.  I'm not sure how the natural resources are actually mined and processed -- at least I didn't see any mines in the YouTube clips.  Here is a full length documentary on it called Future By Design (1.5 hours):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bwJaLFMf7IA

I'm not sure how clearly everything has been thought through, and it seems like there are a lot of holes that need to be filled.  But I would definitely love to live in one of these cities.  It's fun to think about!

[Storm]

Drying your hands on your shirt... I like it! It could be the next big fashion trend:

I'd dry my hands on her shirt!

[doodle]

The cultural pressures that you are describing that make people want to kill each other are very different from the cultural pressures that might make people want to change the way they use the bathroom.  In the former case, you are talking about instincts toward tribalism that are older than the hills, while in the latter case you are talking about an impulse that arises from a very enlightened person who lives in a very prosperous and stable society. I don't know if it's realistic to think that one could somehow be transformed into the other.

That last sentence is cynical....and not indicative of what history shows. Look at the progress that Americans have made on the issues of equal rights in just the last 50 years in this country. We have an African American president, where only 50 years ago he wouldn't have been allowed to sit at the same lunch counter as a white man in the South. That is progress and transformation. And human beings are more than capable of doing this IF!!!! the enlightened members of society (the Ghandi's, the Mandela's, the Martin Luther King's, the MediumTex's) don't just lie down and say:

"Show me a young conservative and I'll show you someone with no heart.  Show me an old liberal and I'll show you someone with no brains."

I do believe that it is possible to have both. And after watching  the movie Ghandi last night, it shows how enormously powerful these two can be when combined.

The presenter in the second video posted by Gosso (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4mkRFCtl2MI) said something at the beginning of his presentation that I have also heard my brother (an anthropologist who studies societies and their structures) say many times, and that is that humans need to look to the rules, regulations, and structure of this system that we live under to understand the way that humans behave. In other words, it is a bit of a chicken and egg dilemma....Is it the system that makes humans behave the way they do, or is it human behavior that creates the system that we live under?

I think the presenter and my brother are arguing the former. Here is a simplistic analogy....why is football a violent and aggressive game, whereas tennis is not? Both are played by humans, in fact the tennis racket could even coceivably be used as a weapon to take out your opponent. The reason is that the rules, regulations, and structure of the game force the participants to behave in an entirely different fashion to achieve their goals....one aggressively, and the other peacefully.

We need to ask ourselves....how can we design our societal structure so that we minimize destructive behavior not only to ourselves but to the ecosystem which supports us. This is exactly what our founding fathers did 250 years ago. They were asking themselves the very same question. How can we create a system of government that extracts the best from humans and curbs their ability to do harm? Because of their efforts (although imperfect) they none the less layed the foundation for the most prosperous country the world has ever known. What differentiates the success of America from the failure of myriad other countries??? It isn't that the humans being born in any of these countries are different from one another....that their DNA is different. It is that the system which they live under is designed in one case to foster success and in the other case to induce failure.

WE NEED TO REEVALUATE OUR SYSTEM!

The founding fathers lived in a world of resource abundance, of little scientific knowledge, of low population density....their system was designed for their world.....not ours.

Jaque Fresco made a statement in another of the videos that Gosso posted regarding "utopianism". He said that the failure of past attempts to create Utopia is that they were static systems. They didn't take into regard the need for change and evolution. Utopia is a journey not a destination. It is ever changing and evolving based on the circumstances.

Thanks, for the videos Gosso. I will explore further.

MT,

Ultimately, though, maybe you and I are really just two different faces of the same person at different stages of life, since I remember a time when I felt exactly the way you do now about many things.  

What led you to accept the status quo? Isn't this a bit of a defeatist outlook on life, when in fact we have seen so much progress to be optimistic about?

[doodle]

Maybe everything I wrote above can be summarized by this:

Stimulus --> Response

Different Stimulus --> Different Response

If we agree on this, then we agree that the changes I discussed in my original post are possible.

MT,

The cultural pressures that you are describing that make people want to kill each other are very different from the cultural pressures that might make people want to change the way they use the bathroom.  In the former case, you are talking about instincts toward tribalism that are older than the hills, while in the latter case you are talking about an impulse that arises from a very enlightened person who lives in a very prosperous and stable society.

You said "impulse that arises from a very enlightened person who lives in a very prosperous and stable society". In that case, the determiner of my actions was not my nature....but systemic nurture.

By the way...two thumbs up to this video posted by Gosso: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4mkRFCtl2MI This is exactly what I am talking about.

[MediumTex]

MT,

Ultimately, though, maybe you and I are really just two different faces of the same person at different stages of life, since I remember a time when I felt exactly the way you do now about many things.  

What led you to accept the status quo? Isn't this a bit of a defeatist outlook on life, when in fact we have seen so much progress to be optimistic about?

What makes you think I accept the status quo?  What makes you think I have a defeatist outlook?

Just because I woke up one day and realized that it wasn't my job to change the way everyone who disagrees with me thinks doesn't mean that I have accepted the status quo or feel in an way defeated.

Actually, I think I got a lot better at changing the way people think the day that I learned to accept that that way they think today makes perfect sense to them, and if it doesn't make sense to me that's my problem, not theirs.

By studying why others feel as they do (rather than simply condemning it or dismissing it if it's out of step with my own ideas) I feel like I am much better at connecting with other people and actually influencing the way they think.

You say your brother is an anthropologist.  When he encounters a new culture with values that he personally disagrees with, what does he do?  Does he take it upon himself to attempt to re-create the culture in the way he would have made it if he had been in charge, or does he try to understand the culture's internal logic that has led them to see the world in the ways that they do (even if it would seem very strange to us)?

When I say I remember feeling exactly the way you feel now I wasn't thinking back on the glory days of my idealism; rather, I was thinking back to a time when I had been convinced that banging my head against a brick wall was a good way of getting through it, rather than simply looking around for a door or perhaps a way of walking around it or climbing over it. 

As I look back on the road I have traveled I see many brick walls that I was able to navigate through, over or around with minimal effort, but if I look very far back I see a few early walls that I struggled with and I feel kind of silly when I see the impression at about eye level on some of them that looks like someone stood there and banged his head against it for a long time before finally trying something else. 

But I don't mean to dissuade you from wrestling with the ideas that are currently gripping you.  I say wrestle them with all your might.  I am still wrestling with a whole host of ideas myself.

[Gosso]

By the way...two thumbs up to this video posted by Gosso: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4mkRFCtl2MI This is exactly what I am talking about.

I'm glad you liked it!  I think the reason why it speaks to me is because it would put engineers and scientists in-charge of society, rather than politicians and Wall Street.  It's an interesting idea but the only way it will happen is if we create new charter cities (here's an interesting Ted Talk on charter cities (18 minutes)), the current system blows-up, or we colonize new planets.

I think they only have 10% of the total picture and that was the easiest 10%.  The other 90% will require something similar to the Manhattan Project except several times greater.  It's fun to think about, but I don't lose any sleep over it.

I was just reminded of a quote from Jurassic Park by Ian Malcolm as the group enters the Dinosaur Park Tour:

Oh, God help us. We're in the hands of engineers.