Post 1
This section of this
report will introduce the topic of resource depletion, as well as its ties to
overpopulation. The application of philosophy to this topic will come more into
play in later posts that will address possible options for dealing with this problem.
When considering the problem of global resource depletion, there are two
categories in which the problems can be placed. The first is a depletion of
natural sources of raw materials and resources, such as fossil fuels, minerals,
fertile topsoil, freshwater, and forests. The second factor is known as
“sinks,” or areas/processes that absorb and detoxify industrial waste products.
While a lack of sufficient sinks is inarguably an obstacle to growth, this
report will focus more on the depletion of sources.
Before delving into this problem, it must be noted that the world contains a
finite amount of non-renewable resources, which, once depleted, will be gone
for good. With this in mind, we must question whether the human use of these
resources will be sustainable long enough to develop technology that can
relinquish us from our dependence on these non-renewable resources. It must
also be noted that there is a minimum amount of both renewable and
non-renewable resources needed for the survival of current cities and towns.
This is important, particularly when addressing possible fixes for global
resource depletion as we cannot expect that any practically applicable solution
to this crisis would involve the dissolving of cities and towns, as the effects
of this would be devastating to their populations. Instead, this dissolving of
current communities would more likely be a result of a global economic collapse
that results from a lack of sufficient resources.
There is a common misconception regarding the use of renewable resources.
Often, when people think of renewable resources, they imagine that the name
implies that an infinite amount of these resources can be used without
repercussions. However, an important factor in this situation which is often
neglected is the amount of time it takes for the sources of these renewable
resources to replete themselves. Because of the amount of time this process of
renewal takes, it serves as a limiting factor in human/economic growth. What
this means is that the supplies of these renewable resources can only be
sustained if the rate of consumption of the resources is less than the rate of
their renewal.
For years, the most pointed to cause of the depletion of resources has been the
size of the population. While the population size is indubitably a factor in
the global depletion of resources, as it obviously would require more resources
for many humans to survive than it would for just a few, the role of
overpopulation in the overall global consumption of resources has been greatly
overstated. Politicians addressing the issue of resource consumption have
commonly called for provisions such as the use of birth control in poorer
countries to reduce their populations and thereby reduce the amount of
resources that they require to live. While the control of the populations in
these countries may be helpful to the individual economies in which birth
control is widely used, this would actually do very little to mitigate the global
depletion of resources. An observational study performed by World Bank
calculated the use global use of resources vs. income to determine whether the
control of the populations of poorer areas would sufficiently manage global
resource depletion and returned with shocking results.
From this data, you can see that over 75% of the resources consumed globally
are consumed by the richest 20% of people and companies, while the fraction of
resources consumed by the poorer populations is almost negligible in
comparison. While it may make sense that the richest businesses use the most
resources, produce the most goods, and are thereby the richest, this data
clearly shows that a simple reduction in the populations of poorer areas will
do little in terms of slowing the global consumption of resources.
The point that this information draws out is that, as far as the global
consumption of resources goes, the population size is much less a factor than
is the modern way of consumption in rich areas. It is not an issue of resources
required for survival nearly as much as it is an issue of overindulgence in
luxury. There is a minimum amount of resources that humans require for
survival. It is not entirely unreasonable that humans might want to make more
for themselves to help them better enjoy their living experience. However, the
current methods of consumption appear to only be benefitting around 20% or so
of the population, while the rest of the world is left with little in terms of available
resources for consumption. This brings into question the importance of this
widespread use of resources, as the idea of a small group of people devouring
most of the available resources for profit and in the process damning the
future is sickening. This mode of consumption by the rich is environmentally
unsustainable, and the consequences of overshooting the Earth’s capacity for
resource production in the name of indulgence in luxury are dire for all of the
planet’s inhabitants.
Post 2
In my last post, I
explained the issue of overconsumption and its role in global resource
depletion, as well as the links between consumption and population. Here, I’ll
go into some of the factors feeding into the growth of this issue.
One great contributor
to the waste of resources is planned obsolescence, a natural side effect of a
system governed by the pursuit of wealth. Planned obsolescence occurs when a
company purposely produces a product that will not last a lifetime. Though the
materials to manufacture products that will continue to function properly for
decades do exist and are available, it is far more profitable for a company to
create products that will need to be replaced with new products after a set
amount of time. On one hand, this is an obvious waste of resources. However,
from the perspective of the producers, this is the only way for their business
to thrive. If products of high quality were produced, there would eventually be
no need for consumers to buy any more of the company’s product, and the company
would go out of business. For this reason, the integrity and sustainability of
a system of production centered on the gain of wealth is called into question.
How can we create a system of production that is both secure for the producers
as well as environmentally sustainable?
A possible solution to
this problem is to severely limit the amount of resources that can go into the
production of certain products, as well as limit the number of releases of
minutely upgraded versions of these products. A pertinent example of wasted resources
can be found by looking to the company Apple. Apple has many slightly upgraded
versions of their products over the course of the past 10 years, and while a
great deal of ingenuity and genuine improvement has occurred, there is also a
great deal of waste due to the intermittent release of these upgrades. While
the technology for, say, the iPhone 2 was better than that of the iPhone 1, it
is incredibly likely that the technology used in the iPhone 5 was available
during the time of the production of the iPhone 3. It’s not impossible that the
technology was available before that, but I’ll give Apple the benefit of the
doubt because the point remains clear regardless. By limiting the amount of
improvements that are released with a new product, Apple is able spread the
release of the technology over the course of 3 or 4 different products,
increasing the amount of money they can make from selling those products.
Smartphones and computers require some rare materials to properly function, but
instead of saving some of those resources for future technologies, it is being
wasted on slightly upgraded versions of products in order to produce more
capital gain. These resources often end up thrown into dumps, which serve as
embarrassing reminders of our wasteful habits and practices.
The question is, how can we limit this waste while still
preserving the freedoms of businesses and consumers? A harsh reality that we
must come to terms with is that we will not be able to preserve these freedoms
entirely. We will not be able to continue living life in the same manner as our
parents and grandparents. For us to save the future of our planet, we must be
willing to make sacrifices in our consumption. Our personal freedoms and
desires cannot supersede protecting the future of the world. However, these
sacrifices do not imply that we will have to give up everything that brings us
joy; instead, we must simply insure that we are not wasteful, that we recycle
the resources that can be reused, and that we work together in preventing
others from committing the same atrocities against our planet that we are
guilty of. I believe that the way to do this is through education; by
explaining the gravity of this situation, and by providing information that can
be used to help prevent waste, we might be able to slow down what seems to be
the inevitable decline of our society.
The amount of time before a total collapse due to widespread resource depletion could, in theory, be calculated from information such as expected use of the resource, availability of recycling, the amount of the resource currently remaining, as well as a few other variables, but because of the changing nature of the market and overall consumption, no predictions made from these types of calculations could be firm. However, it is undeniable at this point that, without some massive changes in the mode of consumption, we will drill our planet dry. There are a few questions here. Do we need an entirely different system of production, or can our current methods simply be modified to bring our resource consumption to a sustainable amount? Would these changes greatly limit personal freedoms? Would those possible limitations to personal freedoms be worthwhile overall? Finally, how long will it take for us to kick our asses into gear and start making changes to save the future?
Post 3
Originally, my plan was to focus this post on the
links between environmental destruction and capitalism, but from the
information in my last post, the connections are apparent. Instead, I will
attempt to discuss possible ways to improve the situation. However, it is
difficult to determine exactly how much improvement is needed, so some of the
following suggestions may not sufficiently deal with the problem.
A possible solution to the overconsumption of the
planet’s resources is to impose strict regulations on production. These
regulations would mandate that each company recycled as much as possible, limit
the amount of toxins that can be emitted, and put a stop to production once the
good was no longer needed. This would also need to include regulations to
combat planned obsolescence. However, these restrictions would inevitably
increase the difficulty of new companies trying to break into the market, which
would result in monopolies and oligopolies in many areas of the market.
Moreover, eliminating planned obsolescence would severely impact each company’s
ability to make the profits necessary to run a business in the future. Because
of these side-effects, it appears that simply imposing stricter regulations may
not be sufficient to maintain both our economy and our environment.
An alternative solution to our resource problem may
require a much greater involvement of the government in the production of
goods. In order to eliminate some problems associated with the removal of
planned obsolescence and wasteful over-production of slightly upgraded versions
of products, it may become necessary that the government takes charge of the
production of many goods that do not need frequent replacements. An example of
a product that the government could be put in charge of producing is washing
machines. Since there is no real need to constantly produce newer and better
washing machines (as the existing machines sufficiently perform the task), once
everyone that wanted a washing machine had one, there would be little reason
for production to continue. By limiting the production of goods like this, we
may be able to conserve what resources we have.
Conserving our existing resources is particularly
important because of the time it takes for science to progress. My third suggestion,
or one that would be supplemental to any possible suggestion for resource
conservation would be to heavily focus on increasing our ability to recycle
used goods and improve our technology so that less resources are required to
run them. Through these technological improvements, combined with a far more
controlled, sustainable mode of production and consumption, we may be able to
preserve life on this planet.
I'm with you. The most genuinely-conservative approach to resource depletion is really the opposite of the approach currently advocated by most "conservatives". This is not merely a personal issue, as Dick Cheney once said.
ReplyDelete