View - ResearchGate
View - ResearchGate
View - ResearchGate
Create successful ePaper yourself
Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.
Article 20179– nation-states to export people to avoid solving their population and sustainability problemsinternally.– Control ecological footprint size. Careful analyses of ecological footprint size (Wackernageland Rees 1996) should be made at all levels of social organization. (Useful websites on ecologicalfootprint size are www.environment.govt.nz/footprint/input.html or www.bestfootforward.com/footprintlife.html or www.mec.ca.apps.ecoCalefood.jsp or www.lead.org/leadnet/footprint.default.html.) Important issues to consider are: (1) global disparity in ecological footprintsize; (2) impact of the total human population on the ecological life support system ismore important than related subissues of poverty, racism, and individual rights; (3) Biosphere II(Earth is Biosphere I), a 3.1-acre airtight mesocosm in Arizona, USA, illustrated quite well thatan ecological life support system cannot be created and kept functional for a long period oftime. Humankind should not think that an ecological life support system could be created withpresent knowledge. The lesson from Biosphere II is that the ecological life support system nowfunctioning must be protected because a replacement is not possible at present; (4) ecologicalfootprint size is not a robust measure of quality of life; (5) unsustainable practices damage theecological life support system, which results in a per capita reduction in ecological footprintsize; (6) incentives to overuse resources (large ecological footprint size) must be markedlydiminished; (7) a sustainable quality life does not depend on material goods consumption. TheUnited Nations Development Programme asserts that a sustainable quality of life is achievedby “creating an environment in which people can develop their full potential and lead productive,creative lives in accord with their needs and interests.”NURTURING THE TECHNOLOGICAL/INDUSTRIAL SYSTEMNurturing is exceedingly difficult without peace among humans and the other life forms withwhich they share the planet. The war on (destruction of) the world’s ecosystems is, arguably, moreimportant than wars between nation-states. Lasting peace requires inclusion of all life forms.If humankind aspires to both lead the “good life” and leave a habitable planet for posterity, it isessential to preserve both the ecological life support system and the more recently developedtechnological/economic life support system. Present population size, demographic distribution,and level of affluence do not permit any other alternative. Cooperation of all humankind in this effortwill only be possible if there is a vastly improved social equity and peace.The definition of the “good life” is critical. If it is based primarily on acquisition of material goods,the ecological life support system will continue to be degraded. If based on a sense of communitywith both members of one’s own and other species, the good life may be possible. Prugh andAssadourian (2003) believe that the survival of Homo sapiens is not in much danger from anythinghumankind might do to the global ecological life support system. This belief is dangerous becausepaleontological records show that the typical fate of a species is to become extinct. The assumptionof indefinite survival for humans is probably untenable if there is both massive global climatechange and a significant change in the evolution of new species more suited to new environmentalconditions. It is not prudent to gamble with extinction while the alternative of living in a mutualisticrelationship with the present ecological life support system appears possible.Precautionary measures are always preferable to assumptions of invulnerability, as the passengersand crew of the Titanic discovered too late. On the other hand, as Prugh and Assadourian(2003) remark, most people would not choose a society in which a few people control resources.Mutiny is the likely outcome if the resources are disproportionately distributed, unless a totalitarian