Is it normal we have not yet built any sustainable communities?

40% Normal
33 Comments

Lately, there has been a lot of talk about changing the way in which we live, to a sustainable way of living. Many scientists, politicians, community leaders and ordinary people from all walks of life, agree that we need to form new, sustainable communities. Many billions of dollars have been spent on this, yet not one truly sustainable community has been built.
Is it normal we have not yet built any sustainable communities?

Voting Results
40% Normal
Based on 25 votes (10 yes)
Help us keep this site organized and clean. Thanks!
[ Report Post ]
Comments ( 33 )
  • dappled
    11 years ago

    Thought-provoking post. I see sustainable communities as being very desirable but ultimately at odds with the needs of business. A country that lives cheaply, wastefully, and exploitatively in consuming resources aggressively is always going to more competitive than a country that serves the environment.

    This is one of the biggest challenges for environmentalism. How do you agree a global policy so that we all are equally responsible? Take the Kyoto Agreement. Three of the biggest countries on the planet at the discussion have no emission reduction strategy and another of the biggest countries delayed the whole process because they refused (and still refuse) to sign.

    Much of Europe signed up but, despite Greece being allowed to actually increase emissions, their financial state remains so parlous they are now opting to simply not pay back the bail out loans from the rest of Europe. Things are desperate here and, for once in my life, I think that environmentalism is a secondary concern.

    Being bleak about it, I don't think there is a long-term environmental strategy that fits our economic model. We will continue to make the planet a less and less desirable place to live.

    Comment Hidden ( show )
    1
    1
      -
    • Anonymous Post Author
      11 years ago

      I think that you hit the nail on the head, so to speak, when you said that we are all equally responsible. Take Canada, for instance. Canadians, per capita, use more energy and resources than any other country in the world. The Canadian government agreed to cut greenhouse gas emissions by 17% by 2020. Instead of a reduction since signing (then withdrawing) from the Kyoto Protocol, greenhouse gas emissions have steadily increased. I think that if we wait for big goverment to act, it will never happen. Instead, all we need to do, is reduce the population by 17% from the 2002 level, at the same time work on development of a more efficient society, without the use of most plastics. This will create many jobs, increase wealth and quality of life. Kyoto would then be a non-issue.
      There are many things that every individual can do to become more efficient and less wasteful with simple minor lifestyle changes.

      Comment Hidden ( show )
      1
      1
        -
      • dappled
        11 years ago

        To be fair, Kyoto is almost a non-issue anyway because it doesn't go anywhere near far enough. I always saw it as an attempt at buy-in and then we'd get to the difficult stuff when everyone had bought in. But people wouldn't even buy in to Kyoto.

        Population, as you say, is a big one. But, like nearly everything, fixing things is at odds with our economic model. A reduced population is a reduced number of consumers is a reduced market. Business wants a bigger market. What are the chances of the people of the world grouping together and choosing to have fewer children while those in control of the money, the media and the governments choosing to propagandise alternatively?

        Population is also something that is only slowly diverted. A bit like climate. The longest day on earth, the one with the most sunlight, is in June. But the hottest days are usually in August due to the lag caused by the oceans maintaining thermal energy and releasing it later. Populations are the same because kids born today are liable to be still around in the year 2100 regardless of how many new kids are born.

        I really like your arguments and I wish I was more positive. I'm genuinely hoping my negativity is just my own problem. But I do believe we've left it too late.

        Comment Hidden ( show )
        1
        1
      • Captain_Kegstand
        11 years ago

        Reduce the populations by 17%? Tell that to goof balls like the Duggers, "John and Kate plus 8" (whoever the hell they are), and Octamom! These people have become rich and famous for promoting the population problem!

        Comment Hidden ( show )
        1
        1
          -
        • Anonymous Post Author
          11 years ago

          So why don't you get off your ass, and write letters to networks, media, politicians and others who promote these behaviours?

          Comment Hidden ( show )
          0
          0
            -
          • Captain_Kegstand
            11 years ago

            No network is going to change their approach to a multi-million dollar industry because of the letters of some sales rep in mid-western BFE.

            Comment Hidden ( show )
            1
            1
              -
            • Anonymous Post Author
              11 years ago

              They will if millions of people cancel their subscriptions, boycott them and their advertisers, state that they will not vote for them or even threaten a lawsuit.

              Comment Hidden ( show )
              0
              0
    • Captain_Kegstand
      11 years ago

      Very well written answer, I learned several things here that I was unaware of. I can see why "dappled" is a name that is almost held in celebrity status on this sight lolz.

      Comment Hidden ( show )
      0
      0
  • Faceless
    11 years ago

    Theres a sustainable community in your crotch.

    Comment Hidden ( show )
    0
    0
  • GoraIntoDesiGals
    11 years ago

    All energy we use (except nuclear) is either direct or indirect solar energy. Even oil is stored solar energy as it once was biomass created by photosynthesis and eaten by an animal that itself died and decayed. We simply haven't found a way to efficiently (and cost effectively) extract solar energy at the same rate we use energy and are still depleting stored reserves. If we produced more than we consume there would in fact be no limit to how far we could continue this growth. There is no real shortage of commodities, only no cheap and abundant energy to dig deeper or look in outer space for them. Of all doctrines I find none as dangerous as that of negative growthers whose utopia would only aggravate this economic crisis and increase joblessness to astronomic proportions. We should start consuming again and more and let science solve the energy problem. The economic crisis would be history.

    Comment Hidden ( show )
    0
    0
      -
    • Anonymous Post Author
      11 years ago

      Incorrect. All energy we use, including nuclear fission, is either direct or indirect solar energy, except nuclear fusion, since all elements higher in atomic number than hydrogen, were fused inside of stars.
      Oil was formed from both plants and animals. Most was deposited during the Carboniferous Period, which lasted about 60 million years. We will have used up the bulk of this energy resource (petroleum) in less than 200 years. We currently have only about 40 years left, at our projected consumption rate, which continues to increase, primarily due to uncontrolled population growth.
      We do have technologies to efficiently and cost effectively extract energy. Two very much underdeveloped ones are 1) Closed-Loop Photobioreactors and 2) Geothermal Energy. The reasons why these are not being developed is because of greedy and short-sighted corporations and politicians. Further, to make these more cost effective, would be to raise everyone's standard of living. The best way to do this, is for each female to voluntarily have one child. Thus the wealth of two persons flows down to one, doubling their standard of living.
      If there is no real shortage of commodities, then why are 1.2 Billion people alive today, living on less than $1.25 per day, in abject poverty?
      Yes there are ecological limits to our growth, and we have already surpassed them.
      You are absolutely mistaken, by mistaking negative population growth, with negative economic growth. If we decrease the population, while increasing economic growth, then we can use better technologies to make up for the labour shortage.

      Comment Hidden ( show )
      0
      0
        -
      • GoraIntoDesiGals
        11 years ago

        "Incorrect. All energy we use, including nuclear fission, is either direct or indirect solar energy, except nuclear fusion, since all elements higher in atomic number than hydrogen, were fused inside of stars."

        Nitpicker. What I mean is that nuclear energy doesn't come from our sun but is stored energy that is even more ancient.

        "The reasons why these are not being developed is because of greedy and short-sighted corporations and politicians."

        Liberal bullcrap. The reason they are underdeveloped is because they aren't cost-effective. True cost-effectiveness pays for itself without government subsidies and would sure attract what yo call greedy corporations, myself first.

        "The best way to do this, is for each female to voluntarily have one child. Thus the wealth of two persons flows down to one, doubling their standard of living."

        Alterglobalist bullcrap. And if it weren't because of the problems that negative growth would do to our economy alone (major depression!) it has all sorts of undesirable side effects such as preference for sons exacerbating a skewed gender ratio, the 4-2-1 problem such as is happening in China because of the one child policy.

        "If there is no real shortage of commodities, then why are 1.2 Billion people alive today, living on less than $1.25 per day, in abject poverty?
        Yes there are ecological limits to our growth, and we have already surpassed them. "

        Poverty is ALWAYS a result of no free market capitalism and dictatorial or religious regimes with no access to good education in order to keep them dumb.

        Comment Hidden ( show )
        0
        0
          -
        • Anonymous Post Author
          11 years ago

          How dare you label me a "liberal". I do not believe in any type of partisan politics, because this always leads to some sort of authoritarian or dictatorial form of government, like most governments today.
          These technologies are feasible and cost-effective. The only reason they're not being developed on a large scale, is because of a political unwillingness and corporate greed. A geothermal energy plant could produce cheap, clean thermal and electrical energy for millions of years, with very little maintenance. Closed-loop photobioreactors can provide clean long term cost-effective fuel, and has the added benefits of not using up more agricultural land, and could use human sewage as a nutrient source, plus could use some carbon dioxide emissions.
          If negative population growth is the cause of major depressions, then why are we in one now?
          Although I do not believe that any population control program should be imposed, China's one-child policy has largely solved the problems of mass poverty and famine, and has resulted in a booming economy. If people are so shallow for gender preference, that's their problem. Ever so pragmatic, the Government of China has also solved the 4-2-1 problem by allowing single children to have two children, if they choose.
          Poverty is always the result of overpopulation. Dictatorial and/or religious regimes are the result of overpopulation.
          Free market capitalism is a choice. Do we really have much choice in the world today, when the bulk of many goods and services are firmly controlled by a few corporations?

          Comment Hidden ( show )
          0
          0
  • anti-hero
    11 years ago

    It is not normal, you should get on that.

    Comment Hidden ( show )
    0
    0
  • iEatZombies_
    11 years ago

    The Venus Project
    Jacque Fresco

    Okay, now to get people to change their ways.

    Comment Hidden ( show )
    0
    0
      -
    • Anonymous Post Author
      11 years ago

      Some of their premises are.correct, but others are not feasible in the real world. They purport that there are unlimited resources available, which is absolutely false. They say nothing about how to control population growth, which is the root cause of most of today's problems. What is the incentive or motivation for anyone to do anything in a society where everything is free? They have been talking about doing these things for almost 40 years, but what have they actually built? We need more doers and less thinkers. Notice how these things will come about sometime in the future. What we need to do, is to start building more sustainable communities now! Not some grandiose future city, that will never happen. Some of these types of ideas can be developed in the future, but we must start building many smaller communities that are more sustainable now.

      Comment Hidden ( show )
      0
      0
  • Anonymous Post Author
    11 years ago

    PETITION FOR GLOBAL SUSTAINABILITY

    We, the people of the planet Earth,
    recognize that social and political inequality exist, that certain political, corporate, charity and religious organizations actvely promote behaviours that are contrary to the continued existence of human civilization.
    By signing this petition, I affirm that I will actvely pursue a strategy for global sustainability in the following:

    Place an (X) in any that apply. (X) all.

    Box -Limit my natural reproduction to one child, except where multiple childbirths occur and that I will not use any type of fertility treatment, except in extraordinary circumstances where a panel of certified medical practitioners agree.
    Box -Limit my natural reproduction to two children, except where multiple childbirths occur in the second pregnancy and that I will not use any type of fertility treatment, except in extraordinary circumstances where a panel of certified medical practitioners agree.
    Box -Not produce any further offspring if I already have more than two children.
    Box -Delay my (my partner's) first pregnancy until I am (she is) between 26 and 30 years of age (or later), except where a generational gap occurs.
    Box -I advocate for licensed childbirth regulations.
    Box -I advocate for free and Universal sexual health and family planning education and services, without interference from organizations that promote non-sustainable population growth.
    Box -I will not vote for any politician or for any political group that promotes non-sustainable population growth either actively or through denial or negligence of sexual health services.
    Box -I will boycott any group and it's affiliates who advocate against contraception or safe medical or surgical abortion performed by certified medical practitioners, before the third trimester of pregnancy, except where the health of the mother is in jeaopardy.
    Box -I will boycott all religious organizations that promote non-sustainable population growth through scripture or dogma.
    Box -I will boycott any charitable organization for underprivileged people that do not have an effective one child or less per female policy in place. (Except where natural multiple childbirth occurs)
    Box -I will boycott any corporation, corporate affiliate and their advertisers that promotes non-sustainable population growth.
    Box -I advocate for removal of all media that promotes non-sustainable population growth and replacement with media that promotes awareness of the dangers of overpopulation and sustainable development.
    Box -I advocate that persons receiving social welfare should be denied a birth license, and that if they cite a religious excuse, then that organized religion is fully and independently responsible for the care of the family.
    Box -I advocate for reform of all laws that promote or reward families that have more than two children, except where multiple births occur... (After reform and enactment of law)
    Box -I advocate reform of all immigration law to promote small families and immigrants who agree to limit reproduction after attaining citizenship.
    To be cont'd...

    Comment Hidden ( show )
    0
    0
      -
    • anti-hero
      11 years ago

      "...between 26 and 30 years of age (or later)"

      Why not just say 26 or older?

      Comment Hidden ( show )
      0
      0
    • Anonymous Post Author
      11 years ago

      Box -I advocate for the reduction of most plastics and replacement with new materials that are re-usable, recyclable and not toxic to the environment.
      Box -I advocate for the development of sustainable cities and communities (i.e. walkable cities).
      Box -I will actively pursue civil litigation (class-action lawsuit) against any and all groups that promotes non-sustainable development. (My argument is simple; most developed countries affirm my right to life. By pursuing non-sustainable development, these organizations are depriving and/or degrading that right)

      I ask that any interested persons copy, modify and circulate this petition. I also ask that they work in co-operation with one another.
      Keep a separate list of all organizations and important individuals in them.
      You may ask for donations for your efforts, but please do not be greedy.

      Comment Hidden ( show )
      0
      0
  • Avant-Garde
    11 years ago

    I don't think it's normal. With the way things are going down with our environment: glacier melts, ozone depletion,etc. I think the world needs to hurry and try to figure out a solution. I've seen designs for futuristic eco-friendly buildings, but allot of them aren't being made. Another thing is that the buildings would have to be made for everyone and affordable. But allot of people can't afford things and allot of countries are in poverty. Poverty would have to be dealt with before the production could be properly started and who knows how long that would take?

    Comment Hidden ( show )
    0
    0
  • [Old Memory]
    11 years ago

    I actually believe that sustainability is possible...even likely. Renewable rescources would actually be cheaper...even free, beyond initial startup costs. That's why corporations invest loads of money to convince us that they're not possible.

    Comment Hidden ( show )
    0
    0
  • Darkoil
    11 years ago

    Of course there are sustainable communities.

    Comment Hidden ( show )
    0
    0
      -
    • Anonymous Post Author
      11 years ago

      Where? Name one.

      Comment Hidden ( show )
      0
      0
        -
      • Darkoil
        11 years ago

        There are shit loads of isolated communities that are self sustainable, they might not be modern or what we would class as civilized but still they exist.

        Comment Hidden ( show )
        0
        0
          -
        • Anonymous Post Author
          11 years ago

          That is a fallacy. There are only a few isolated communities. They are not self sustainable, just that they are few in number and nature is able to recover from their destructive behaviour. They are almost always transient.

          Comment Hidden ( show )
          0
          0
            -
          • dalmationUntoyourSoul
            11 years ago

            are you talking about only in the united states? because there are still some aboriginal people throughout the world that hunt, gather, and utilize low impact agricultural techniques. i believe there are some small villages and communes in the united states too that generate their own power. i think you are a fool and want to be difficult.

            Comment Hidden ( show )
            1
            1
              -
            • anti-hero
              11 years ago

              He is indeed.

              Comment Hidden ( show )
              0
              0
            • Anonymous Post Author
              11 years ago

              Let's say that there are 700,000 people who live more or less sustainably in the world. That would be 0.01 per cent of the world's population. Is that going to make any difference if 99.99 per cent of the world's population lives unsustainably?
              There is more to living sustainably than just producing power. You need fresh water resources. Remember to include agriculture and manufacturing, where most of these resources are used (and in some cases being depleted). You need food. We are currently using almost all of the world's
              arable land (and depleting the oceans) for food production, and that is heavily dependent on non-renewable energy sources (fossil fuels). If you would like to preserve our technology, then you need energy resources. 86.4 % (2007) fossil fuels. Also, plastics will end up destroying most of the life on Earth should we continue using them willy-nilly. This, plus other resources, and we are currently adding about 75,000,000 people to the world population every year, thus increasing demand. Feast to Famine? Inevitable, unless we make changes now.

              Comment Hidden ( show )
              0
              0
  • Justsomejerk
    11 years ago

    I think if we haven't built any, it is normal that we haven't built any. We should build some. I know people who who live without services ie they rely on solar power and rain water.

    Comment Hidden ( show )
    0
    0