Author examines 'world without us'
Alan Weisman told Earth & Sky, "Our planet would really flourish without us around." Photo: Flickr user Kimba
Let’s just suppose that for whatever reason, human beings just disappeared tomorrow.
That’s the premise of the book, The World Without Us by Alan Weisman. Weisman is a science journalist who spoke with many scientists, experts and religious leaders to research our human footprint on Earth, and what might happen on Earth if we humans suddenly disappeared.
Alan Weisman: I’s kind of a way, by theoretically just wiping us off the planet, to get a much clearer idea of what else is here. And it turns out our planet would do really, really well. It would really flourish without us around.
For instance, the asphalt jungles of today’s cities would in short time crumble and give way to real jungles. To get a sense of Earth without humanity, Weisman described a walk through a pristine and remote forest.
Alan Weisman: It didn’t feel exotic to me. It somehow felt complete, when I went in there my body just sort of responded and said, yes! We have a memory within us of what this world was when it was fresh and new, and it was extraordinarily exciting to feel what it’s like to be in something that pristine.
Do you agree that Earth would be better off without humans? Tell us what you think by leaving a comment below this article.
Listen to an 11-minute podcast featuring Alan Weisman speaking about his book “The World Without Us” from the Earth & Sky Clear Voices podcast series.
What a fine idea!!! Let’s kill all the humans ( They’re evil creatures anyway! ) so that the earth can thrive!
I don’t think so.It’s impossible to kill all the humans.But we have to do something to rescue the earth.
I’m with piglet. There are 6.6 billion humans on Earth today. It’s hard to imagine something that would even make a dent in this huge human population, much less obliterate it, without also damaging Earth itself. Weisman’s book is an interesting thought experiment, but it plays into the very 20th century idea of “humans are bad” and “Earth would be better off without us.” There’s just no real basis for either of those statements (I’m not saying Weisman is making those statements, but it’s easy to infer, from what he says, that he might be).
Humans didn’t ask to come into being, any more than any other creature. The human race arose on Earth as all other species did, and we happened to have traits – intelligence, cooperativeness, adaptability, opposable thumbs, etc. – that allowed us to come to our present state of dominating the globe. Until recently in human history, we were struggling against nature for survival. It wasn’t until fairly recently – the past century – that we came to dominate nature.
But many people on Earth today see that we do dominate it. And many are trying to find a harmonious balance between the human species and the world we inhabit.
I believe most people are basically good and aim to do good, and that we’ll find a way through the critical challenges of this century.
Deborah
Agreed, but the author of THE WORLD WITHOUT US doesn’t say in his book that the Earth is better off without humans—he only uses the hypothetical of us being gone to give us a better sense of what about us is permanent and what is fleeting. It’s a wonderful book and deeply human.
Interesting … and as I said, I haven’t read the book. I’ve only listened to our interview with him. What about the book is “deeply human?” I’m curious now …
Deborah
There are some studies out there showing what happens to large populations when resources are limited for food, shelter, water, etc. The population reaches a peak and then there is a drastic crash in the population due to disease caused by shortages of the above types of things. So far technology has saved humanity from shortages in most of these areas for most societies. The cost to do this has been born by other species who have had to give up their habitates to humans. We are a part of the earth’s biology…like it or not….we are not above it. Sooner or later we will hit our “peak of population” and systems will collapse as will our population….and I am sure other species will thrive in our demise. Its happened before (ie the dinosaurs) and it will happen again.
So do I agree that Earth would be better off without humans or with human numbers greatly reduced? Yes, from a total standpoint for all species on earth….yes, the earth would be better off. Would I like to die in a plague to help the Earth get there? No.
The “Earth without us” is a useful approach to comprehend the ‘earth with us’. To visualize a world without us help us in understanding how we have impacted our planet. I am sure this book will contribute toward environmental education.
There are some very beautiful and thoughtful comments here. Thank you all.
Chris … very interesting comment. The other night I was having dinner with a friend, who was complaining about the human impact on Earth. I said to her “Well, the only way to lessen that impact quickly would be for billions to die. Do you want to live in a world where you have to help bury billions of your fellow human beings?” She said yes! But I don’t think she really meant it.
After all, when I was a kid, in the ’50s and ’60s, Earth had only about 3 billion people in contrast to the 6.6 billion we have now. The first Earth Day – the first widespread consciousness of our effect on the planet – was in 1970. Even if we got rid of half of Earth’s population, there would still be a human impact on Earth. And it’s only taken us 50 years to go from three billion to over six billion. Even if we buried half of humanity ... we’d be back up to six billion again in another 50 years or so.
There’s no way back. There’s only a way forward. I believe that human self-consciousness will ultimately – in another century, say – limit human population to a level where we can live in a more harmonious balance with our beautiful planet Earth.
Personally, though, the rest of my short time on Earth, I anticipate serious challenges for the human race. All we can do, I think, is try to contribute to a better world – each of us doing what we can.
I strongly believe that commenting in these forums on the internet is part of bringing about a better world …
Deborah
Chris, what you speak of is known as a Malthusian Catastrophe, or overpopulation, in which a population grows to the maximum capacity that can be supported by the available resources (food, space, etc.). This is not what is believed to have happened with the dinosaurs. We just need to keep producing food and start regulating our population more responsibly and sensibly. This issue should be aided soon, as urbanization should slow population growth.
The stress on our environment is related to our consumption patterns. We, here in the Western world consume lot more than the rest of the world. So in a way we are guilty and should do more right now to save this beutiful earth. Mahatma Gandhi had an idea. He called it ‘voluntary poverty’. Would this be a part of human self consciousness that will limit human population and result in harmonious balance as deborah says. ..
Vijayan, just so! Absolutely right. Our consumption patterns are a key issue.
Evidence is accumulating that money and things do not make us happier. Scientists are actually beginning to study this. Hopefully, people will come to their senses.
Dear Deborah and Friends,
Just for a moment consider how the mere presence of the human species on this good Earth could be primarily responsible for the global challenges looming before humanity in these early years of Century XXI.
If all of us were to develop an exhaustive list of global problems, likely to be confronted by humankind in the next decade, I would guess that these distinctly human problems could be attributed to the huge current scale and fully anticipated, unbridled growth rate of certain soon to be unsustainable consumption, production and propagation activities.
What about the relatively small, finite, noticeably frangible world we inhabit will likely be improved by adding 2.5 billion people to the human community between now and 2050? Please forgive me for saying that I cannot think of a single way in which having 9.2 billion people in our planetary home 43 years from now will be a boon to life as we know it or to the Earth we inhabit.
At least to me, the future of life as we know it in our planetary home appears to be primarily dependent upon choices human beings make now regarding the reproduction of our species. Perhaps the future of our innocent children and coming generations is in our experienced hands.
It seems to me that responsible elders have good works to do by acknowledging, addressing and overcoming global challenges already visible on the far horizon.
Sincerely,
Steve
Yes, how can we accommodate 9.2 billion people? May be we can. Malthus, if he was alive today would have thought that it is a miracle that we have accommodated 6 billion people without major calamities he predicted would occur with 6 billion people. Of course, he did not foresee the kind of technology we now use in our agricultural fields and dairy farms. There are scholars, even today who believe that there are technological solutions (potential) to solve our environmental problems. May be science and technology will continue to increase life expectancy even as our numbers swell. That is good news. Another piece of good news is that family size is decreasing. Thanks to massive family planning programs and China’s one child policy. Unfortunately, the result of this decrease is not likely to show up immediately. That is why we are going to be 9.2 billion by 2050. So we are stuck with that number. All solutions to reduce that number are harsh and will easily violate human rights principles we have espoused globally (at least have paid lip service to it). People in the developing world, where they consume far less than we do have denuded forests, and polluted their waters. The supply of portable water is decreasing. Biodiversity has decreased considerably. White Rhinos have almost disappeared I believe. Add this to the fact that we in developing countries are turning Amazon forests into hamburgers. I think King’s ranch from Texas has massive operations in Brazil. May be we should all become vegetarians like most Indians. That may be a beginning. We can do with a lot less. Of course, this would upset a lot of people who believe in Market -oriented development. It is all about the choices we make. As all of us become more and more aware of what we are doing to our planet, I am sure we all will make choices that are life sustaining and not destroying. After all who does not want to live long and be happy? That means, we have to enter into an unprecedented era of environmental education. We have the mass media technology to reach out and inform. But we have not yet even scratched the surface of the possibilities for massive environmental education globally. I believe that we are not doomed as yet. We have to tighten our belts more, and be informed. I feel optimistic.
It is certain that the next time through “Mother Nature” will determine that the larger brain case was not such a good evolutionary idea. All species eventually recitfy their environment sufficiently to cause extinction.
This is certain to occur with humans.
All we can hope for (the planets sake) is that we only managed to eliminate humans and not all like on earth.
Dear Dale Abbott,
Please forgive me for saying that I could not disagree more with what you report. It seems to me that human beings need to adequately deploy the many gifts (including a large brain) God has granted to us. There is simply nothing to keep us from doing things differently and, thereby, responding ably to the challenges posed to humanity by certain human-derived global over-growth activities.
And yes, Vijayan Pillai, we may yet choose “environmental education,” as you put it, and to accept good scientific evidence as well as an emergent consciousness that will make it possible for us to save life as we know it and the integrity of Earth for coming generations.
Human beings can choose to acknowledge, address and overcome problems of our own creation. As Vijayan says so well above, “It is all about the choices we make…...we are not doomed…...I feel optimistic.”
Sincerely,
Steve
Steve
To expect any kind of radical behavior change in the current human model and thus save the planet is close to the top of the list of most unlikely things to transpire. The human track record and resume` indicates no positive trends towards learning from its mistakes and to hope or pray for any non-genetic change in behavior is wistful.
Hope is one step away from desperation.
I believe that, although it will likely not be a catastrophic event that eliminates all 6+billion of us all at once; our inbred weaknesses (pick any of the seven deadly sins) will finish us off.
Like every other animal on this planet we tend only to react and cannot conduct more foresighted acts than collecting a few nuts pending winter.
It is quite unlikely and naively hopeful, that God or other such savior, will be spirited down to save us looking at the outrageous behavior displayed so far.
Perhaps another species from a distant star might appear and keep us from extinction but I think they would only wish us for a food supply.
I wish I could be more encouraging but we are not really very bright, even for nut gatherers.
Dear Dale Abbott,
You present ideas with extraordinary clarity. Thanks for such rarely expressed and remarkably incisive thoughts.
It goes without saying that both of us hope I am correct and you are not; however, I want to say now in the clearest and strongest possible terms that if the most members of the governing elites and too many great scientists within the human community continue with their business-as-usual, in wanton disregard of good science evidence and common sense, as many too many of our leaders are doing at this time, then a variant of a scenario such as you are suggesting could more likely come to pass, I suppose.
If it pleases you and the Earth & Sky community, let us all continue with this discussion.
Sincerely,
Steve
Dear Dale Abbott, Deborah and Friends,
Please consider that before we were the civilized human beings we are today, having adjusted to the truly formidable complexities of the modern world, we were human creatures in simple, God-given natural environs. Many, many hundreds of years ago we readily recognized how completely dependent the human species is upon the resources of Earth. In the course of time, as our now predominant civilization grew into its current leviathan structure, human beings began learning to forget about their virtually inextricable connection to the natural world. We came to believe that the human world we have constructed in the past several thousand years could meet all our needs. Mother Nature became an afterthought for economic powerbrokers and political leaders the world over. As one of our children has said in song recently, Nothing from nature is good enough for us anymore. We must have our cherries covered with chocolate.
In our time, human beings have come to a point in history when we have gained near-dominion over the natural world. We have gone almost everywhere on the face of the Earth. We do just as we like….without regard for the practical requirements of the biophysical reality of the world we inhabit. Without having any foundation in reality, human beings have held onto and consensually validated the widely shared misperception that the Earth itself is like an eternally-providing teat at which humanity can continuously suckle. The Earth is believed by many too many people to be a certain and endless supplier of whatsoever human beings desire.
Despite being raised in different families, towns and nation-states as well as having different languages, religions, social norms and values, and cultural mores, we gain a personal identity from these and other distinctly human affiliations. Institutions such as these comprise what many call the human world. We pay careful attention to what goes on in this human world when compared to the attention we pay to nature. Afterall, our identities are mostly derived the connections within the human world.
Unfortunately, perhaps calamitously, we have learned to forget the natural world in which we have evolved and upon which we remain, even to this very day, utterly dependent.
And herein resides a problem. We have learned too well to forget about human creatureliness and to ignore the physical limitations imposed upon the human species by our relatively small, finite, noticeably frangible planetary home. Adamantly, relentlessly, unrealistically, we have mistakenly pursued certain distinctly human overgrowth activities now overspreading the surface of Earth. At their current scale and fully anticipated growth rate, unrestrained human consumption of resources; unbridled and endless expansion of the global economy; and unchecked, skyrocketing absolute global human population numbers could have profound, even castastrophic, implications for the future of life and the integrity of Earth.
Here and now, I would like to suggest in the clearest and strongest possible terms that the time has come for the human species to re-establish its connectedness, its timeless affiliation, to the natural world. If we choose to pay as much attention to, and provide as much care for, EARTHS ECOLOGY as we have paid the MAN-MADE ECONOMY, then the pressing global challenges that loom ominously before humanity on the far horizon would surely be resolved in a timely fashion.
Sincerely,
Steve
If we will simply allow people to hear the “clear voice of science,” that will certainly occur when courageous and faithful scientists break their silence surrounding the unchallenged evidence of human population dynamics, then perhaps we will be able to make it possible for people to see WHAT IT IS that remains inaccessible to their sight; WHAT IT IS that already exists before their eyes but, at least until now, is not seen.
The raising of awareness within the human community could result in a profound and powerful new consciousness that helps us enjoin our leaders to lead by actively legislating necessary changes in social behavior and, thereby, more adequately fulfilling the principles of democracy for all.
First, Bravo to Steve, you echo my sentiments completely and say it in a very clear and convincing manner. Second, in terms of whether or not Earth would benefit from us “disappearing” I think it would be very naive to think that it wouldn’t. Earth has been here far far longer than us humans, and had been sustaining life for eons before we came along. Earth seemed to be doing just fine without us, there’s no reason to think it can’t again. Humans are the only species on the planet capable of truly harming the Earth, yet we prattle on and on about how Earth recovers from natural disasters, and the like, but they are exactly that: natural. Meteors may wipe out species, land may flood and kill off land animals, but it would have happened whether we were here or not. As Steve said, we have become too full of ourselves and are ignoring our impact on Earth. I think that deep down, every species on the planet has this “thought.” After all, a few ragged bands of humans roaming the Earth could take all the resources they could ever want from the Earth and any impact would never truly be noticed. Our problem is that we have, through one means or another, circumvented Nature’s checks and balances. We have reached the point where disease will not keep us in check, famine will not keep us in check, war will not keep us in check, and competition with other species will not keep us in check. It is now up to us to keep ourselves in check. The problem is it is against our very nature to keep ourselves in check. We are like any other animal, and we are trained to take what we can get when we can get it… but now we have more than we need, and we’re still taking… We must realize that Nature can no longer keep is within the bounds of the system and change our habits accordingly, but with all the stunts humans have pulled so far, I’m not sure it can be done.
Dear Zephyrus,
Thanks for your comments. They a breath of fresh air.
What I would like to add here is that there is nothing that prevents human beings from learning to think and behave in new ways.
This is only a guess, but I suppose the acquisition of a new consciousness is not difficult to achieve once people begin to widely share their experiences of the world as you, I and many others inside and outside the E&S community are doing now.
Who knows, perhaps such things as potential threats to the future of life and to the integrity of Earth will provide sufficient support for us to choose necessary changes in our thinking and, in other ways, to respond ably to requirements of practical reality in the world God has blessed us to inhabit.
Because I am one of the old-fashioned people who believe humankind “is the measure of all things,” you will not be surprised that I fully expect the human community to survive, thrive and go on. Only the heirs of Ozymandias among us can ruin the prospects for human beings on Earth. Not even for one moment have I believed that these self-proclaimed masters of the universe will achieve the ‘success’ they are so adamantly and relentlessly and unrealistically seeking.
Always, with thanks,
Steve
I agree with Vijayan Pillai, above. We have more than 6 billion people on Earth now, and we will have 9 billion by 2050. As he says, “We are stuck with that number” unless billions die. I do not want to live in a world where billions have to die. I want to live in a world where we work through our difficulties, meet the challenges head on, and ultimately see a better world for our children.
When I was young I was drawn to the idea of being a pioneer. I wished I had been born later, perhaps to become one of the first colonists on the moon or Mars. Now I realize that I am – we all are – part of a generation of pioneers. We on Earth today are pioneering a new world … the world of Earth’s future. We have to be brave. We have to be resourceful. We have to use all our intelligence. We have to work with one another to create this new world.
Perhaps, like all pioneers, we will have to endure some hard times. If so … what choice will we have but to endure them and move forward?
Deborah
Hi,
Perhaps it would be helpful to comment on securing a future with humankind in it. That is to say, how do we assure that our kids enjoy the benefits of the wondrous world my generation of elders was given by our parents. It would be a castastrophe if a single generation ruined the world by precipitating the mass extirpation of biodiversity, the irreversible degradation of the environment, the reckless dissipation of Earth’s finite resources, and the endangerment of humanity.
What I am trying to understand is what human beings can do in the extraordinary circumstances that have appeared so unexpectedly before humanity in these early years of Century XXI. It is as if I inadvertently “fell down a rabbit-hole” around the turn of the century. Since 2001 I have been trying to raise awareness regarding humanity’s all-too-human predicament. The Club of Rome calls the predicament the “world problematique.” Raising awareness is all that I have been able to see to do. Simply to find myself rather late in life in such an unforeseen situation, and to have made so little forward movement with the “AWAREness Campaign on the Human Population” over several years, is completely unanticipated. For most of a lifetime I have believed that Alice’s “Wonderland” was another world, not the one in which I have been living.
I am one who is haunted by the leviathan-like scale and explosive rate of growth of certain unbridled, distinctly human activities now overspreading the surface of our planetary home. Given the astonishing gifts God has bestowed upon the human species, it seems legitimate to believe that we can at least try and deploy well what is God-given. For example, we could choose to receive the education found in the lessons given to us by Ozymandias rather than to confront directly the same experiences of this “king of kings.” We could take the better way and not commit the calamitous errors of Ozymandias; or else we can go along as we are now following the example of the “king of kings” and, by so doing, taking the hard way and learning firsthand what it means to perpetrate the “colossal wreckage” of another great civilization.
If I could ask the members of the E & S community two questions:
WHAT can people do together and, thereby, help one another get from an unsustainable way of life to a more reality-oriented, sustainable way of living on Earth, to lifestyles reasonably and sensibly grounded in recognizing, accepting and ably adapting to Earth’s limitations and human species limits?
GOOD people, how could we begin in our time to do that which engenders forward movement from where we are presently, THE UNSUSTAINABLE NOW, to wheresoever it is we are surely inclined, A SUSTAINABLE FUTURE, for our children and coming generations?
Always,
Steve
What do you think it will take to break the silence perpetrated by the hollow men, the stuffed men, as well as to gain the attention of these leading wreckers of our earthly home, these self-proclaimed masters of the universe who worship the golden calf and the many sources of power derived from it and it alone?
WHAT can people do together and, thereby, help one another get from an unsustainable way of life to a more reality-oriented, sustainable way of living on Earth, to lifestyles reasonably and sensibly grounded in recognizing, accepting and ably adapting to Earths limitations and human species limits?
First; stevenearlsalmony expressed so well the crisis we have at hand. I sometimes feel like I am waiting to see the inevitable death of the human species. Yet, intellectually I know this is a wrong approach. We are motivated to do something only when we have hope. So I think, we have to keep in the limelight words of hope. Everything is not lost. We can do something. For example, I can choose to switch of the lights I dont use in my own house. Become very very energy conscious. These small things we can do in our own homes to save energy empower us to take bigger steps. So I think, we can start making a laundry list of things we can do. May be we can ask the virtual community to join us in making this list. Second, I wonder whether we can use our extensive educational system to send a message to parents. After all our children are the victims of our wanton consumption. Can we infuse a few things in our school curricula about simple things that can be done at home to conserve energy. Every year children can ask parents if they did what they were supposed to do.-something like a home work assignment . It will remind every parent the responsibility they have to their children. Just a thought..
Dear Vijayan,
Many thanks to YOU, Deborah, Bruce, Benjamin Napier, Zephyrus, Dale Abbott, SGlasson, Eleanor I., Doug H., Jorge and a growing number of others in the E & S community,
For the very first time in my relatively long life, but too limited experience, I have this idea that we are beginning, just beginning, to meaningfully get hold of a predicament more simple and more complex than any I have ever imagined.
As for the importance of this endeavor and the necessity for its continuation by every person with a capacity for such discussion, I cannot find words. My words literally get stuck in the threshold of language itself.
Perhaps silence presents itself in our time as one of our most formidable enemies, one to which many too many are willing to capitulate.
I would submit that now is the time for brothers and sisters to add comments to this and other E&S threads. What could be helpful now are more voices, many more voices.
Thanks to all,
Steve
http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/08/16/3219/
I’m glad I across a website that let us discuss the book—exactly what I was looking for.
The Walrus (a Canadian magazine) also has a discussion on their website. Subscribers who post can even win a free copy of the book
Check it out: http://walrusmagazine.com/articles/2007.08.27-the-world-without-canadians-discussion-contest/2/
Thanks Martie for the reference above.
Your missive and the many discussions like the one sponsored by The Walrus encourage me to present a tentative, overly simplified proposal, one designed to save humanity and the world we inhabit perhaps.
Somehow we, the generation of elders, could conceivably do our children a good service 1) by passing the word regarding some kind of plan like Jack Alperts proposition for Rapid Population Decline and by employing our intelligence, science and technology to begin a process of humanely doing as Reiel Folven of Norway is suggesting: fitting the size of the human population to the size of the Earth 2) by downsizing/rightsizing the global economy to fit Earths carrying capacity, perhaps using a model like the one from Aubrey Meyer in England, Contraction and Convergence and 3) by figuring out the fair and just ways to cap per capita consumption of resources so that human consumption realistically fits with what can be sustained in our planetary home.
Obviously, a huge challenge is posed to humanity by the unbridled growth of the human population; however, there appears to be a powerful synergy at work in the interplay of humankinds propagation, production and consumption activities now appearing to threaten life as we know it and the integrity of Earth. As we begin to move in other directions, I am supposing that there would be some kind of beneficial synergy that would help us back down and away from the edge of the ledge at the top of the highest cliff where we seem to have thoughtlessly, inadvertently and unintentionally driven our species.
Somehow, some ways will be found that safeguard the children, their children and coming generations from their experienced elders adamant, relentless and patently unsustainable pursuit of the endless wealth to be acquired along a primrose path, the one that could soon take the innocent children beyond the end of the world and into the abyss.
Always,
Steve
A link to an unusually incisive article follows,
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/02/books/review/Schuessler-t.html?8bu&emc;=bu
I have not read the book but interested in doing so. Can anyone who has read it give any insight as to whether or not this book would be appropriate for advanced high school students to read??
Thinking this might be a “hipper” alternative to Carson’s Silent Spring.
I am confused.The environmentalists tell us how bad off the world would be without darter snails but the world would be fine without human beings. Shouldn’t it be the other way around?
I have long believed that the human race is a mistake of nature that is slowly correcting itself.
Subject: Press Release: Are We Ignoring Our Planet’s Future?
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Contact: Rachel Friedman, 727-443-7115, ext. 206
Rachel@emsincorporated.com
Are Short Term Financial Gains Killing Our Planet?
How Reforms to Capitalism Can Save the Environment
The polar ice caps are melting, species are facing extinction and our climate has become more erratic than ever before. It is impossible to deny the need for intense change in the face of today’s gathering ecological crises. Now that scientific facts support the theories behind global warming, why aren’t more people paying attention—and how do we stop the damage?
Jonathon Porritt, adviser to the UK Prime Minister and author of the new book, “Capitalism as if the World Matters,” (Earthscan 2007) says the first step towards implementing change is to alter the approach to conventional environmentalism. To win people over and get them on board, he suggests focusing on the positive. “Change will not come by threatening people with yet more ecological doom and gloom,” says Porritt. “The necessary changes have to be seen as good for people, their health and their quality of life – and not just good for future generations.”
As the book title suggests, the biggest players in the game- businesses and politicians- must undergo a paradigm shift. “Anything vaguely resembling ‘business-as-usual’ is no less than a death warrant for the highest ideals of contemporary civilization,” says Porritt. “And that means we have to dig a lot deeper than today’s superficial, febrile political debates seem inclined to do.”
While Porritt acknowledges the big picture can be very threatening, he believes positive and profound change is possible. Through his work with Forum for the Future, an organization that works with a very wide range of some of the world’s biggest international companies, Porritt acts as an adviser to a number of chief executives. Porritt says the message that capitalism can be a change-agent for our future is starting to resonate. “Like it or not (and the vast majority of people do), capitalism is now the only economic game in town,” says Porritt. “And that, of course, means that the emerging solutions have to be fashioned with the embrace of capitalism.”
Porritt suggests that today’s model of capitalism is more and more dependent upon liquidating our necessary natural resources. This in turn has a ripple effect of magnifying divides between the rich and the poor worldwide. Porritt suggests that there are three ways we can transform capitalism in order to stop this from getting worse:
Pay real prices for the things that we take out of nature
Get the balance right between the short and long term
Promote responsible consumption (energy, food, travel, etc)
“This combination is the most likely to provide a serious political alternative to today’s economic and political beliefs,” say Porritt. “Sustainable growth is understood as answering the inescapable challenge of living within our “natural limits,” providing unique opportunities for responsible and innovative capital creators, and offering people a more equitable and more rewarding way of life.”
“Capitalism as if the World Matters” offers real-world solutions to the ‘destruction of the world’ problems that our global society faces. Porritt has put his experience to work, outlining frameworks for sustainable capitalism and pointing to the initiatives some governments and businesses are already beginning to follow. As Porritt so adroitly points out, unless conventional environmentalism throws its weight behind this type of progressive political agenda, the planet will continue to face steep decline. ###
To interview Jonathon Porritt or for a review copy of Capitalism as if the World Matters by Jonathon Porritt (Earthscan, 2007; 356pp. paperback, $24.95) contact Rachel Damien-Friedman at 727-443-7115, ext. 206 or email rachel@emsincorporated.com Please include your name, publication, and mailing address with your request. Visit www.forumforthefuture.org.uk for more information.
Paperback: 356 pages
Publisher: Earthscan
Available at: www.amazon.com www.earthscan.co.uk
About the author:
Jonathon Porritt is Co-Founder of Forum for the Future (the UK’s leading sustainable development organization) Jonathon is an eminent writer, broadcaster and commentator on sustainable development.
Porritt was appointed by Tony Blair as Chairman of the UK Sustainable Development Commission in July 2000, the government’s principal source of independent sustainable development advice. In addition, he has been a member of the Board of the South West Regional Development Agency since December 1999, and is Co-Director of The Prince of Wales Business and Environment Program which runs Senior Executive’ Seminars in Cambridge, Salzburg, South Africa and the USA.
Porritt was formerly Director of Friends of the Earth (1984-90); co-chair of the Green Party (1980-83) of which he is still a member; chairman of UNED-UK (1993-96); chairman of Sustainability South West, the South West round Table for Sustainable Development (1999-2001); a Trustee of WWF UK (1991-2005). For his services in environmental protection, he was made Commander of the British Empire in January 2000, which is the highest honor one can receive that does not confer a knighthood.
Rachel Friedman
Print Campaign Manager
Event Management Services, Inc.
1127 Grove Street · Clearwater, Florida 33755
Phone: 727-443-7115 ext. 206
Fax: 727-443-0835
www.emsincorporated.com
Hello to all,
In light of the many astute understandings being presented in this thread, perhaps the paper that is presented at the followsing link could be considered for your REQUIRED READING LIST.
http://getresponse.com/t/9345316/631522/186452485
On the other hand, perhaps I overestimate the importance of the paper, in which case you are invited to comment on its weaknesses.
Always,
Steve
This is more ridiculous eugenics talk. The eugenics movement started in the early 1900s effectively crafting peoples thoughts. Such figures as Adolph Hitler, David Rothschild, David Rockefeller, Madelin O’Hare, Pol Pot, Darwin, Peter Singer, and George Bush (Sr. & Junior) are fans of this thought trainwreck.
Contrary to other posts that suggest it is impossible to kill off 6.6 billion people, I say O Contrare. It would be a simple matter to kill us off and they are planning to do just that. David Rockefeller said that a “SUSTAINABLE” planet would have no more than 500 million inhabitants. Peter Singer, so-called “bio-ethics” guru says we are nothing more than macrel. Prince Phillip says, If I could come back as anything I wish [after death] it would be a killer virus and I would kill off mankind. Adolph Hitler apparently decided to be one of the lucky 500 million and create the “Master Race.” Mao Tse Tung said he would cure hunger in RedChina and he did so by murdering 120 million people and “VOILA” there was instantly more food. Need I go on? Oh what the heck, Ted Turner says that 95% of the earths population needs to be extrminated. Are you getting the message folks? They can and they will cull us out if we don’t stop using our heads as a hat rack and do some REAL investigation. Look up EUGENICS in the GOOGLE search and see what you find. The Rockefeller family owns directly or owns controlling stock in EVERY vaccine manufacturer in the world. Ever wonder why he and Ted Turner want to vaccinate every child in the world, especially 3rd world countries? Clue: They have been caught inserting hormones into vaccines and sterilizing hundreds of thousands of African women. They have been putting Thimerisol [Mercury] in the vaccines and are still doing it. (Can We Say AUTISM?) Abortion is another population control mechanism and has killed more children than all wars added together. Mrs. O’Hare was a pen pal of Hitler. Connecting the dots yet?
But hey, don’t believe me. Get off your chairwarmer and do investigation of your own instead of delving in this drool called academia. Weisman is a shill and just another in a long procession of nihilists who are preaching a very dangerous idiology. You see, if you believe in evolution then you obviously love Darwin and his idiology of “Survival of the Fittest” which is nothing more than an extention of this Death Cult mentality because they think good comes from death and apparently our ner-do-well author is in his camp.
I say good comes from life and I don’t care to engage in this ridiculous mental mastrubation for the sake of turning a few shekles in the Temple.
I say peddle your trash to China where the death vans cruise the streets euthanizing the poor, sick, and abandoned.
Thank you for listening to my rant, now you may return to your Lazy-Boy and hypnotize yourself with more Seinfeld.
Yes the Earths population will rise and then fall quickly. The more humans there are the less other stuff there will be because you cannot create mass nor can you take it away. So evetually we will come to a point where we will not be able to grow enough food because of little organic mass avaliable for a plant to grow. Then I guess people would eat eachother and then there will be some resources for plants to grow. Basically if we continue increasing the population well take up to much of life on Earth.
Newsflash: The earth would be pristine without us. Who would have thunk it? You Earth worship folks are a riot.
I’m in favor of having a world without us, or at least dedicate vast areas of the earth to be uninhabited, untouched, unmined, etc. It is genuinely revitalizing to be outdoors in the wilderness wihtout having to see or hear anything reminding of civilization.
The planet would be better off without humans. What a strange
species we are. We have evolved with the intelligence to alter
our environment but with the fatal weakness of being able to be
emotionally manipulated to make changes detrimental to our own
best interests. Unfortunately the latter characteristic has
overwhelmed our intelligence and we are on an irreversible path
to self and other species destruction.
Whether or not the earth would be better off without us human beings depends on its purpose, its teleology. Since the biological establishment excludes teleology from the field, this is not something on which a “clear voice for science” can speak unless we go back to the root meaning of the word, which is “knowledge.” But this is an intensely interesting philosophical-theological question. Since the universe, the galaxy, the solar system and earth itself all are fine-tuned to make life and in particular the higher forms of life possible, it seems likely that earth was designed for a purpose. This implies a designer. Given that human beings are the only species capable of appreciating this likelihood and things like the beauty of the earth and of its creatures and the wonder of their complex interrelationships, an earth without humanity would be a wonder appreciated only by its designer.
I am looking forward to reading a recent book on Tolkein’s works entitled “Ents, Elves and Eriador: The Environmental Vision of J.R.R. Tolkein.” His theological interest in caring for the earth is entirely consistent with the Biblical concept of human beings as stewards of earth responsible to the Creator. Elementary Buddhism (or Hinduism) has not led to strong environmental progress in countries dominated by these worldviews. In fact, it is only in countries with a Christian heritage that the will and the wealth have emerged to begin to repair the damage that unrestrained greed (a vice) has wrought upon the earth.
Yeah Tim halls right. There are people who care to much about the Earth and To much people who care to little. Not enough people in between. The people who care to much are kinda crazy. You know Earth has survived for a long time with out are help. Pretty sad that people are making all these stories about global warming and stuff. I say for people to calm down and fix all the economic troubles and then when there is peace in the world begin to fix up the Earth a bit.Right now were wasting a lot of money to help the Earth and to fight wars and stuff. Thats why were getting no where. I say take one thing at a time.
Humanity didn’t ask to come into being, anymore than any other creature. We didn’t cause ourselves to have our particular traits – intelligence, cooperativeness, adaptability, opposable thumbs – and also lust for power, greed for material things, hatred for those beyond one’s own “tribe” – all those human traits both good and bad – we didn’t cause ourselves as a species to be born with them. We just were born with them.
So it’s our task to overcome the dark parts, and emphasize the good and kind parts … isn’t it?
Isn’t it every human’s task on Earth to try to be a good, thoughtful, loving person?
And if we all simply tried – and held the value of trying – wouldn’t that make a huge difference to the way the world works?
Deborah
Dear Friends,
Sometimes it looks to me as if some of our brothers and sisters are so singlemindedly focused on the accumulation of wealth and power, in feathering their own gigantic nests, frequenting exclusive clubs, flying private jets, sailing yachts and visiting exotic hideaways, that they have forgotten how human life depends upon Earth’s limited resources and frangible ecosystem services for its very existence.
The “powers that be” have evidently failed to understand what it means when we say that the Earth is round, finite and has biophysical limits to which the human species is absolutely subjugated. One consequence of this denial of the requirements of practical reality by the masters of the universe among us is that the scale and rate of per capita consumption is dissipating natural resources at an accelerating rate, one that is growing much faster than the Earth can restore them for human benefit. So obviously unsustainable is the current level of per human overconsumption by a minority of people in our time that we can observe some of overconsumption’s devastating effects: biodiversity is being extirpated, the environment degraded and humanity itself endangered.
Is the fulfillment of the insatiable wishes of unrestrained consumers a result of unbridled big business interests relentlessly pursuing a course of endless economic expansion, based upon the feckless consumption of the very limited resources needed for the survival of life as we know it?
Is the human species literally eating itself out of house and home?
How do things look to you?
Thanks for your consideration and comments here. Letters to news editors, social movements and cultural change are also encouraged.
Sincerely,
Steve
Plainly, what is necessary now is intellectual honesty and courage as well as a willingness to begin “centering” the attention of the leaders of the human community on the threat to humanity, life as we know it, the environment and the integrity of Earth that is posed by the gigantic scale and evidently unsustainable growth rate of the human population worldwide.
The leaders in my not-so-great generation wish to live without having to accept limits to growth of seemingly endless economic globalization, increasing per capita consumption and skyrocketing human population numbers; their desires are evidently insatiable; they choose to believe anything that is politically convenient and economically expedient; and they act accordingly; but, despite all their shared fantasies and soon to be unsustainable activities, Earth exists in space-time, is relatively small and bounded, and has limited resources upon which the survival of life as we know it depends. Whatsoever is is, is it not?