ice cream !!!

[goodcompanion]

@dlskidmore 29861 wrote:

Sustainability is possible, but the buzzword in my college ecology classes “sustainable growth” is not.

Good grief. What kind of ecologist could possibly endorse a concept like “sustainable growth?”

[dlskidmore]

@goodcompanion 29862 wrote:

Good grief. What kind of ecologist could possibly endorse a concept like “sustainable growth?”

The same brainwashed ones that order “green” appliances be shipped from other continents, and buy “green” food that has more chemicals than plant/animal products in it. Politicians and advertisers come up with this junk, and everyone keeps parroting it around and putting it in textbooks because it sounds nicer than reality. They can believe in this stuff and make “green” industries rich and feel all good about themselves.

Reality is harsh. It doesn’t go over well with the masses.

[dlskidmore]

They have apparently reworded it as “Sustainable Development” since I was in school, but it still means the same thing.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sustainable_growth

[jac]

My take is a bit simpler.. The whole system we have in the western world is pretty much non sustainable.. we depend on other countries working to produce goods cheaper than our own markets can. Like it or not our percieved wealth is built on other folk working for peanuts.. if we were to pay the going rate for a shirt to be made by an American or a UK worker then we couldnt afford it !so our standard of living drops.. simple. Once every developing nation in the world decides they want the same rate of pay as the west , then what ??? as for the “green ” label, that has been hyjacked by big industry as a money spinner and nothing else.. Our country has a chain called Tesco who recently had an ad campaign about how they sourced locally produced meat for example and how they cut carbon emmissions… well good for them but I would have felt better if they had shut the f*c% up about it and just did it.. John

[dlskidmore]

@jac 29865 wrote:

Like it or not our percieved wealth is built on other folk working for peanuts.. if we were to pay the going rate for a shirt to be made by an American or a UK worker then we couldnt afford it !so our standard of living drops.. simple. Once every developing nation in the world decides they want the same rate of pay as the west , then what ???

*nod* Unions had a place in making work safe and reasonable to do while raising a family, but the upward spiral in common labor pay is a big part of the problem. Common labor wage goes up, everything made by common labor becomes expensive, common labor complains they can’t afford all the cool stuff made by common labor and demands a pay increase. Specialized labor goes up in proportion, as they see the value of their dollar go down and they demand pay increases too. In the end, the dollar buys less, and everyone is just as well or poorly off as they were to start with +/- a little luck, people who responsibly saved money loose out, people who irresponsibly lived off credit beoynd their means win, and the structure of our society suffers. Such “growth” has to occasionally collapse. Better several smaller ones than one doozy, but politicians see the small ones and push at interest rates and tax refunds to “stimulate” the economy and postpone it all for a later, larger, crash. You have to let things get bad for individuals that invested poorly, or society will not be shaped to invest more wisely.

[jac]

I have an interesting book written in the 20’s by a wheelright called George Sturt… it is a detailed account of how he took over his fathers business.. it seems the amount charged for making a farm cart {as one example} remained unchanged for nearly 15 years.. one of the reasons was that all the villages needs were met in the village.. inflation only started to creep in when items were sourced outside the village ??
John

[near horse]

Revisiting the sustainable issue – my question is what length of time qualifies an endeavor as sustainable? 50 yrs? 100 yrs? 1000 yrs? In perpetuity is my take on the word UNLESS it comes with some sort of qualifier. Overpopulation resulting in the die off of much of a population does not meet my understanding of the term sustainable as the die off itself is the result of an unsustainable situation (overpopulation).

It’s hard to evaluate the current situation by looking at the past as the global population was significantly smaller pre-1900 (like 400 million then vs 7 billion now). All the “free lunches” have already been eaten, so to speak. Now we have no more places to go when we over use an area and that requires some serious creative thinking.

[goodcompanion]

@near horse 29871 wrote:

All the “free lunches” have already been eaten, so to speak. Now we have no more places to go when we over use an area and that requires some serious creative thinking.

Or, if you prefer, some serious creative denial.

[jac]

Geoff I was trying to show how inflation in any economy starts us down the road to unsustainability and I think the 2 will always be linked… inflation is a human element brought on by greed…usualy by the shareholders and the people that think they are something special.. then it filters down.. Some of the so called “sustainable” measured implemented by our government over here are anything but.. wind farms being one… John

[Carl Russell]

As has been well-stated several times “sustainability” is a very difficult term to use accurately, and equally difficult to attain. One of the reasons is that it is more of a human concept. In nature there really is nothing that remains unchanged into perpetuity. That is not to say that natural systems are not self-sustaining, but to be so they incorporate flexibility and mutability.

To my mind the best way for us to approach sustainability in the context of our culture is to restrict ourselves to systems that require very little input or maintenance. In other words, use systems that can stand alone, or at the very least have a “slow” break-down period.

Obviously with the huge dependency on petroleum, electricity, and “technology” we as a group are a very long way from that, but focusing on sustainability as if it is an alternative that is somehow supposed to last forever in a self contained vessel only leads to arguments that distract us from finding solutions that we can all agree on. Economic sustainability, social sustainability, functional sustainability, and ecological sustainability all have different meanings to different people, and trying to find ways to make a sustainable system last forever just confounds the solution because it just doesn’t exist.

The main objective in my life is to try to make decisions and take actions that limit my impact and extend the greatest amount of future possibilities based on what is available in my natural surroundings…….:confused: whatever that means….

I see a problem when companies like B&J try to sell us on the concept that our dollars are going to sustainability. It is one of those undefinable terms that advertisers love. Every consumer can get their own sense of warm-and-fuzzy. In actuality there is no way they can really deliver on their assertions. I’m sure there are some who actually believe they can back up their offer, but in the long run it will cost too much for them to actually not buy milk from farms that use Atrozine, or in the case of SFC forest products to not market lumber from logs cut by huge LO who routinely muddy the waters of the certification process.

In the long-run it really comes down to buyer beware. We really must understand that businesses that do commerce on such large scale need to create stories that are attractive to consumers. The story only needs to float long enough to get folks in line. If you want to buy the story, then know that is all you are buying. If you as a consumer truly have motivations beyond that then it will take a lot of homework…… which is probably a good thing anyway. It becomes a problem for those of us who do the homework when there are probably hundreds of others for each one of us who think they are doing enough just standing in the right line….

Carl

[near horse]

I personally think that the sustainable term is as meaningless and empty as the ways corporations use it to market a product. It should be punted and replaced with something that addresses the impact – low input or low impact. Still suffers from some of the same problems as the term sustainability (or organic for that matter).

You are right Carl – nature is not static and we choose which stages of succession that we find suit us best.

[jac]

Think we might be drifting into two differing debates.. sustainable human behavior regards living and sustainable economies… John

[mitchmaine]

Hey john, I wonder if the two are so far apart. The way I’m seeing it, if you try and live sustainably, meaning grow and eat your own food and cut your own fuel, feed your animals and try and keep it whole, the land demands taxes, and the family starts needing insurance and so on so that you need to go outside the system for cash. Work out there, or sell what the farms produces, but there goes the model and we’ve broke a hole in sustainability. We can live as simply as we can at home surrounded by the system that demand fuel of its own, sweat, money or whatever. Geoffs right that 7 billion people create a lot of demand on the system. Don’t know where the breaking point is but it must be close. If 7 billion people were all active in agriculture just trying to feed themselves and their neighbors and oil and manufacturing and capitalism wasn’t part of the story, it still would be a tough chance.

Carl said that ben and jerry were right up front with their business model. Take your money. You have to give them credit for being honest and upfront. Nothing in there about being ecologically aware or enviornmentally friendly. Or even making good ice cream. Show me the money. My dad always said thieves were the most honest of citizens. Stick a knife between your ribs and “its your money or your life”. That’s pretty straightforward. No sugarcoating. Two clear options. A lawyer or an insurance agent or a used car salesman (no difference) would have all kinds of gimmicks and legaleeze in there to confuse you and get your money. Nope. I like the theif too.

I think it was carl again who said something about our culture and not knowing how to make stuff, and I agree, but we, as a culture have also somehow given up the decision making process. We rely on others to tell us what to eat and think and blah, blah blah. That’s why sustainability and organics and green and the rest have any credibility. Its like the emperors new cloths. He ain’t wearing nothing.

mitch

[mitchmaine]

@mitchmaine 29882 wrote:

Hey john, I wonder if the two are so far apart. The way I’m seeing it, if you try and live sustainably, meaning grow and eat your own food and cut your own fuel, feed your animals and try and keep it whole, the land demands taxes, and the family starts needing insurance and so on so that you need to go outside the system for cash. Work out there, or sell what the farms produces, but there goes the model and we’ve broke a hole in sustainability. We can live as simply as we can at home surrounded by the system that demand fuel of its own, sweat, money or whatever. Geoffs right that 7 billion people create a lot of demand on the system. Don’t know where the breaking point is but it must be close. If 7 billion people were all active in agriculture just trying to feed themselves and their neighbors and oil and manufacturing and capitalism wasn’t part of the story, it still would be a tough chance.

Carl said that ben and jerry were right up front with their business model. Take your money. You have to give them credit for being honest and upfront. Nothing in there about being ecologically aware or enviornmentally friendly. Or even making good ice cream. Show me the money. My dad always said thieves were the most honest of citizens. Stick a knife between your ribs and “its your money or your life”. That’s pretty straightforward. No sugarcoating. Two clear options. A lawyer or an insurance agent or a used car salesman (no difference) would have all kinds of gimmicks and legaleeze in there to confuse you and get your money. Nope. I like the theif too.

I think it was carl again who said something about our culture and not knowing how to make stuff, and I agree, but we, as a culture have also somehow given up the decision making process. We rely on others to tell us what to eat and think and blah, blah blah. That’s why sustainability and organics and green and the rest have any credibility. Its like the emperors new cloths. He ain’t wearing nothing.

mitch

The disclaimer:
Nothin’ against car salesmen or insurance agents, my apologies, in fact we all have to worry about getting’ sucked in by the same system and ending up just like ‘em not that there is anything wrong with it.
Everytime we, organic farmers, timberframers, holistic woodchoppers, whoever, start using the same rhetoric. Fancy slogans, fuzzy cuddly adjectives, other parts of speech that try and make our product intellectually superior to our neighbors, then we barking up the same tree and becoming part of the problem. Selling local, where your neighbor knows where you live and letting your work speak for itself with no explanation is the way I see being as honest as you can.

[jac]

Well said Mitch.. some say the balance point has been reached already regards human population.. I dont know. Carl makes a good point.. we have lost a lot of skills over the years and I think its been happening that way since the wheelright I mentioned earlier..he started buying in factory made nails so the blacksmith lost out.. then farm equipment started being brought in from the big factories so the blacksmith shut the shop and so it went.. now we {society}buy from the hypermarket and so the local shop shuts. Britain doesnt make a tractor now.. can you believe that ?!?!.. sure CNH assemble tractors at Basildon but its not quite the same.. not a bad discussion concidering it all started with ice cream haha….
John

[Author]

Posts