Environmentalist's Paradox: We Do Better While the Earth Does Worse

Dear Ronald Reagan: Thanks for Wrecking America

Bill Moyers Makes Newt Gingrich Look Like an Idiot

Right's Stupidity Spreads, Enabled by Too-Polite Left

FOCUS | Madonna, Like a Man, and Hated for It

FOCUS | Why Democrats Fracking Suck

"So what explains the disparity? Why are people doing better even as ecosystems are doing worse?"

An oil-soaked bird struggles at the site of the Deepwater Horizon oil spill, 05/09/10. (photo: Gerald Herbert/AP)

Comments

+5 # Guest 2010-09-04 10:00

Evidently, the main problem is our slavish adherence to a bottom line type of thinking that does not look forward far enough. That we live like there's no tomorrow increases the likelyhood that there just might not be a tomorrow! Sure, the human condition seems to be getting better, but that we will deplete resources that took the earth many millions of years to create, all in less than 200 years, suggests that reality just hasn't caught up with us yet, but it will eventually. The flaw of unrestrained growth and limitless greed is that eventually we will deplete our finite planet of its' ability to sustain itself. But what the heck? Whose going to seriously challenge the fantasy of infinite growth and infinite greed? I swear, most people seem content that some future generation will have to pay for our sins for us. That seems to be just plain okey-dokey to far too many. For shame!

+3 # Guest 2010-09-04 10:10

The key is the time lag, or gestation period, between an environmental degradation and its effect on humanity (decades, usually, as for cancers to develop), plus the fact that most, but not all, environmental degradation will have direct effects on humanity.

+2 # Guest 2010-09-04 10:21

With adroit pen, and quoting Plumer's "HumanDevelopmen t Index," Mr. Roberts portrays the paradox of increasing welfare, while the natural world goes down the toilet, very accurately. Unfortunately, at the end, he leaves out some words which would make his portrayal of the future more accurate.

In his 'gains' I would add, by the elite; and follow his 'losses' with, by those without medical insurance and other means of coping...'are deferred.'
Then, I would modify his 'our parochial, by adding, cowardly 'perspective.' As is usual with environmental writers, human population and the effect of the large and more conservative world religions are neglected. If these were included in what the economists call 'externalities of production,' all of us and Mr. Roberts would be closer to the truth. And perhaps, closer to stopping the heinus deferral.

+2 # Guest 2010-09-04 12:59

Put an opened bag of flour out and watch the moths move in and destroy both it and themselves. They will eat, defecate, and multiply until their poisons ruin the flour and then they die -- way before it is all eaten up. Our day will come.

+1 # Guest 2010-09-04 14:25

Exponential population growth is unsustainable. Period. End of story.

+3 # Guest 2010-09-04 17:20

I agree - way too many people and an unrelenting corporate mind set that places profits above all other considerations. Many civilizations have come and gone and it seems like we are at the edge of a big crisis. Too much extinctions, too much pollution and overpopulation all coming together at the same time. Our ecosystems are breaking down and no one in powerful positions are willing to take responsible steps!

+1 # Guest 2010-09-05 14:49

In addition to what has been noted above, I will add that 4) we have been prospering AT THE EXPENSE OF the Earth, and that 5) a forever-dwindling number will be able to continue getting richer in perpetuity AT THE EXPENSE OF the rest of us -- and that is all that matters, because THEY are the ones making the decisions.

+1 # Guest 2010-09-06 05:52

Finally an author who almost gets it! If we stop the fossil fuel use people will die now. If we continue they will die later. Consider converting India to nuclear energy. They now have 12 nuclear plants supplying 1% of their energy. Build 99 X 12 more to replace their other sources. Then double it to get them up to a reasonable standard (far below ours) then by 2050 double it again to accomodate the population which doubles in less then 40 years.....and about then we run out of uranium! If you think technology will get future generations out of this you've got your head stuffed firmly where the sun don't shine!

Refresh comments list
RSS feed for comments to this post.

THE NEW STREAMLINED RSN LOGIN PROCESS: Register once, then login and you are ready to comment. All you need is a Username and a Password of your choosing and you are free to comment whenever you like! Welcome to the Reader Supported News community.

rsn

Name:	*
Username:	*
E-mail:	*
Password:	*
Confirm password:	*
Fields marked with an asterisk (*) are required.