This was: http://csf.colorado.edu/mail/deep-ecology/jun99/msg00644.html
< < < Date > > > | < < < Thread > > >
At 15:58 30/09/99 +1200, I wrote: > That is, I currently believe that if everyone on earth was living like >me, we 6 billion humans would be ... and all other species still living >would be able to flourish. In fact a material standard-of-living quite a >bit higher than my present one would still be sustainable, measured by ... ** That was to emphasise how my views differ from those of the biologist PL and Mike, i.e. that without question, by dropping our consumption to almost nothing (and living densely, closer to the oceans and the equator), even 6 billion of us would allow the DE "flourishing" for all other species. Then we would have to ask ourselves: "what rate of consumption (and human population) would have no greater impact on other species than is the typical effect of one species on those around it?" ** Now I want to explore the possibility that, at least in small groups, sufficient "flourishing" for most people could be a result of significant _differences_ in consumption, within the group. As examples, I look to: (1) the Lord of a Manor and his serfs; (2) our family of 4 or 5; (3) a village in Europe ten years after the Black Death (bubonic plague). ** It's an attempt to put a "real life" overlay onto the patently false "everyone on earth being the same" statements I and many others use. (1) ** I don't regard feudalism as inherently wrong; in fact, with its mutual dependence relationships, it has much to teach us about living sustainably. Being human, there were obvious "bad eggs", and since power corrupts, the Baron was more likely to be such than the ordinary man or woman. What I (at least) know little about, is examples of where a valley with its villages and Manor house was a happy place to live, for _many_ decades, and with luck, a few hundred years. ** I would guess that there would be a range of ways of living, from bare subsistence to the relative luxury of the Lord and his family, but typically each person or family group would be generally satisfied with life. The average for the people in such a valley could well be at a sustainable level of consumption (or impact on the planet's ecosystems). IMHO (2) ** Our family has a range of consumption (originally because I was determined to live within my means: an income of ~$3,200 per year), ranging from my wife's at something over $30,000 a year through my son's (and daughter's, after she returns from China later this month) probably in the $5,000 a year area, to my own, at under $1,500 a year. The lower-spending people benefit from "the scraps from the landlord's table". The (relatively) high-spending person buys things for herself (fruit, the occasional computer, car transport) which then filter down (or excess is given) to the low-spending people. My son, for example, really values the good-condition fresh fruit she buys weekly, while I willingly eat the better parts of the fruit rejected by the others. And the high income was enough to pay for not only her own visit to friends in Kenya and her mother in Wales, but also to gift the plane fare (to Beijing) to our daughter so she could have months of Mandarin immersion. ** Again, a factor of more than 20 in consumption rates, yet we're all happy with our very different ways of life. And close to sustainable I'm guessing. (3) ** I picked "10 years after the Black Death" as the last time (ignoring wartime) I'm sure there were too few people to do the necessary jobs, in quite a large region. ** I visualise a European village at this time as having arable farmers, herders, woodsmen, a hunter or trapper, and several cottage industries making objects and materials in high demand. All people there would be valued, including the village idiot and of course the visiting friar. But the consumption rates could well have varied greatly, from the (relatively rich) senior family, maybe a merchant, to the roust-about who is basically "hands for hire" living behind a shed. There would be a certain amount of hand-outs from the richer to the poorer, and some of the poor might have resented the wealth differential, but I'm guessing that for most decades, most of the people would be happy enough. The (relatively) frequent holiday celebrations would have helped keep people willing to tolerate their conditions. David. (David MacClement) d1v9d @ bigfoot.com (remove spaces) https://davd.tripod.com/index.html *************************************************
This is: https://davd.tripod.com/DiversityInSmallGroups00644.html