Dimentio
29th June 2006, 11:01
The market liberals are claiming that the environment becomes better through economic growth, and means that the consumers when they have reached a certain wealth level wants an environmentally clean environment due to "their aesthetical needs". Especially the libertarians - those of them who does not view environment completely as something to be exploited - are particulary found of these theories.
The problem is that this issue is neglible in stark contrast with the need for a globally sustainable biodiversity. Market liberals, particularists and individualists as they are, believes that the environmental problems could only be defined as visible pollution, the disappearance of specific species [especially cute, furry species like pandas] and the dumping of industrial machinery.
The truth is that the greatest problem of all is not pollution, or the extinction of large mammals. Rather, these problems are merely symptoms of a larger picture, where the greatest problem of them all is the limitless growth requirements of the socio-economic system of today, because if it stops growing, it would collapse. Thus, increasingly wide areas of the world are turning into plantations, industrial production lands or agriculture, turning complex ecosystems into monocultural commercial production sites and increasing the weight which our consumption is putting on the ecosystem.
The successes and achievements of the green movement, most remarkably recognised by the giant Pyrrhic victory of the Kyoto protocol, does not do anything to stop that development in a civilisation where economic growth continues to be paramount in comparation with the objective sustainable interests of our own specie as well as the global biosphere.
When 30% of the species could be wiped out in fifty years, and one quarters of the planetary biosphere destroyed beyond recognition, we need to see that the current socio-economic system is a relic that we must get rid of since it cannot sustain the technological level of the civilisation and threatens to destroy it.
We need an energy-based circulation zero-growth economy, and we need it yesterday. No socialist or green movement do have a satisfying answer to how this would be achieved. So why not look at the technocratic movement? It is the only movement which ave put up a realistic design which would create a sustainable society and give all it's participants basic prosperity, with a stability reminding of the ancient hydraulic civilisations.
The problem is that this issue is neglible in stark contrast with the need for a globally sustainable biodiversity. Market liberals, particularists and individualists as they are, believes that the environmental problems could only be defined as visible pollution, the disappearance of specific species [especially cute, furry species like pandas] and the dumping of industrial machinery.
The truth is that the greatest problem of all is not pollution, or the extinction of large mammals. Rather, these problems are merely symptoms of a larger picture, where the greatest problem of them all is the limitless growth requirements of the socio-economic system of today, because if it stops growing, it would collapse. Thus, increasingly wide areas of the world are turning into plantations, industrial production lands or agriculture, turning complex ecosystems into monocultural commercial production sites and increasing the weight which our consumption is putting on the ecosystem.
The successes and achievements of the green movement, most remarkably recognised by the giant Pyrrhic victory of the Kyoto protocol, does not do anything to stop that development in a civilisation where economic growth continues to be paramount in comparation with the objective sustainable interests of our own specie as well as the global biosphere.
When 30% of the species could be wiped out in fifty years, and one quarters of the planetary biosphere destroyed beyond recognition, we need to see that the current socio-economic system is a relic that we must get rid of since it cannot sustain the technological level of the civilisation and threatens to destroy it.
We need an energy-based circulation zero-growth economy, and we need it yesterday. No socialist or green movement do have a satisfying answer to how this would be achieved. So why not look at the technocratic movement? It is the only movement which ave put up a realistic design which would create a sustainable society and give all it's participants basic prosperity, with a stability reminding of the ancient hydraulic civilisations.