by radon1 » Mon 22 Sep 2014, 10:07:03
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Ibon', 'D')o any of you see the possibility that the immediate generations to follow who will go through some severe consequences of constraints might well implement, out of necessity, some strong regulations regarding consumption for the greater good. Preserving a "free market" perhaps but the "freedom" part held within some real strict boundaries justified by preserving the commons; air, soil, biodiversity, resources. Is this wishful thinking?
The very fact that these sorts of questions are being systematically asked is certainly encouraging. This is not the first time a civilization approaches its limits - a number of examples from Easter Island to Romans to others have been discussed on these pages. But this is the first time that a civilisation does recognise these limits, and consiously raises awareness of the related ecological issues. The history does not seem to have any record of similar discussions back at the Roman times or elsewhere in the past.
This development of the awareness of ecological issues at the level of the society may be similar to the development of the medical science at the level of individual. Nowadays, a patient follows carefully the advise of the doctor who says that the patient must restrain themselves from overload or excesses before full recovery from a sickness takes place. Previously, no such restraint was practiced simply because the medical science was not developed enough, and as a result people lived less.
Also, as some mentioned, the prolifiration of the ecological awareness is particularly pronounced in the "developed" world. This is also an encouraging sign, because this is the developed world who have to lead the cultural change in order for this change to be effective.
So, while there are all the reasons around us for us to remain sceptical, these encouraging signs indicate that the situation is definetely not hopeless.