I think the per-person metric is a poor metric when talking about damaging consumption.
Yes, we can all lower our standards of living in developed countries and also transition to more communal transport and utility systems (you can do this right now, within your means and comfort), but a very large portion (a majority I think, in fact) of the human race have standards of living that arguably are so low that they should be raised.
This metric also completely misses the exponentially higher amount of devastation caused directly from mass production consumerist capitalism. Shifting to economic systems which make only what is reasonable while also not denying those in need would likely be the biggest move towards sustainability.
The per person metric is great! ~If you are a large corporation and need to shift blame that is.~
Yes, extraordinary personal consumption can make things way worse, but lowering your standards can only improve things so much until you hit the limit. imho the solution lies in using the resources we have more efficiently, so that people can sustain and improve their living conditions, while greatly reducing the ecological burden. If you demand that people shall lower their standards for the greater good, it will work about as good as telling them to wear a mask during a respiratory pandemic.
Isn’t that exactly what is said? The growth of people x consumption is finite and there needs to be a system change to represent that. It does not specify how the factors are balanced in relation to each other.
While this is technically true, we wouldn’t be such a strain on the ecosystem if we didn’t consume so much per person.
I think the per-person metric is a poor metric when talking about damaging consumption.
Yes, we can all lower our standards of living in developed countries and also transition to more communal transport and utility systems (you can do this right now, within your means and comfort), but a very large portion (a majority I think, in fact) of the human race have standards of living that arguably are so low that they should be raised.
This metric also completely misses the exponentially higher amount of devastation caused directly from mass production consumerist capitalism. Shifting to economic systems which make only what is reasonable while also not denying those in need would likely be the biggest move towards sustainability.
The per person metric is great! ~If you are a large corporation and need to shift blame that is.~
Yes, extraordinary personal consumption can make things way worse, but lowering your standards can only improve things so much until you hit the limit. imho the solution lies in using the resources we have more efficiently, so that people can sustain and improve their living conditions, while greatly reducing the ecological burden. If you demand that people shall lower their standards for the greater good, it will work about as good as telling them to wear a mask during a respiratory pandemic.
I’m not burning down the amazon so I can make more money on palm oil.
There is such a thing as “supply and demand” , but consumerist culture originates from the top, not the bottom.
Isn’t that exactly what is said? The growth of people x consumption is finite and there needs to be a system change to represent that. It does not specify how the factors are balanced in relation to each other.