Talk:Creating a Learning Society: What have Organisational Psychologists to Offer?

From PsychWiki - A Collaborative Psychology Wiki

(Difference between revisions)
Jump to: navigation, search
Paul (Talk | contribs)
Quester67 (Talk | contribs)
Line 8: Line 8:
Change can and does happen very quickly. There are not too many people on this planet, (although we are above the optimum) as it is perfectly possible for the Earth to support up to 9 billion people if we tread lightly. Besides, research has shown that birth rates fall radically when women are given economic and hereditory power and opportunity. And we definitely do not require 5 backup planets.
Change can and does happen very quickly. There are not too many people on this planet, (although we are above the optimum) as it is perfectly possible for the Earth to support up to 9 billion people if we tread lightly. Besides, research has shown that birth rates fall radically when women are given economic and hereditory power and opportunity. And we definitely do not require 5 backup planets.
 +
 +
 +
== Response ==
 +
 +
I think you would find the Ecological Footprint caculations more sophisticated than you think. My personal view is that there are so many inter-related problems (which I have reviewed in Part I of my ''New Wealth of Nations'') that I find it hard to believe that fixing a small number of them will come near to fixing ''the problem''. The probelms include those associated with the international banking community, the so-called defence systems, and the production of endless senseless products which in reality perform a primarily sociological function. Yes. You are right. We ''could'' radically change the way we live ... starting here, not in China or India ... But the most fundamental problem is, not to bring about the necessary change in anything approaching the available time scale (though that is serious enough). It is to change the way we ''run'' our society, so that we run it in anything approaching the long term public interest ... so that we can offer most people on this planet the opportunity to live long, high quality, lives. (And this does ''not'' depend on material possessions.) ''This'' is the issue I would like to focus on here ... ie precisly not disputing one or other of the indices of the state we are in. As I see it, the fact that we, as a species, are in a very perilous positon seems to me beyond dispute.
 +
 +
[[User:Quester67|Quester67]] 08:55, 10 March 2008 (PDT)

Revision as of 15:55, 10 March 2008

"Wackernagel and Rees (1996), among others, have shown that it would require five back up planets engaged in nothing but agriculture for everyone alive today to live as we do in the West. It cannot be done. There can, therefore, be little doubt that, to live in a sustainable way, we would need a society which would be as different from ours as agricultural society was from hunter gatherer society (see Raven, 1995 for more detail). But, just as no one in a hunter-gatherer society could envisage what an agricultural society would look like, so no one in our society can realistically envisage what a sustainable society will look like. There can be no blueprint."

I have not read Wackernagel and Rees but I presume that the 5 backup planet figure is derived from all cultures copying our current behaviours. In other words using Carbon based fuel and energy, throwing waste into landfill, inefficient buildings and industries, etc. I have seen large, complex, silo based organisations change beyond recognition in under 3 years and after the 3 years to be powering ahead with a mechanism and capacity to determine and make further changes at a far faster rate going forward.

One of the sources of fatalism in this issue is the myth that we would need to give up our current lifestyles in order to progress to sustainability. This myth has been manufactured and maintained by those that profit from it. For example permanent magnetic power can create enough energy to power our homes, vehicles and industries, with no other energy sources required. There are many examples on the internet of home-made permanent magnetic generators costing under 15 dollars in materials being used to power perpetual motion machines.

The fact is we can become sustainable while increasing freedoms such as mobility, career choice, communication, access to entertainment and information.

Change can and does happen very quickly. There are not too many people on this planet, (although we are above the optimum) as it is perfectly possible for the Earth to support up to 9 billion people if we tread lightly. Besides, research has shown that birth rates fall radically when women are given economic and hereditory power and opportunity. And we definitely do not require 5 backup planets.


Response

I think you would find the Ecological Footprint caculations more sophisticated than you think. My personal view is that there are so many inter-related problems (which I have reviewed in Part I of my New Wealth of Nations) that I find it hard to believe that fixing a small number of them will come near to fixing the problem. The probelms include those associated with the international banking community, the so-called defence systems, and the production of endless senseless products which in reality perform a primarily sociological function. Yes. You are right. We could radically change the way we live ... starting here, not in China or India ... But the most fundamental problem is, not to bring about the necessary change in anything approaching the available time scale (though that is serious enough). It is to change the way we run our society, so that we run it in anything approaching the long term public interest ... so that we can offer most people on this planet the opportunity to live long, high quality, lives. (And this does not depend on material possessions.) This is the issue I would like to focus on here ... ie precisly not disputing one or other of the indices of the state we are in. As I see it, the fact that we, as a species, are in a very perilous positon seems to me beyond dispute.

Quester67 08:55, 10 March 2008 (PDT)

Personal tools
Namespaces
Variants
Actions
Navigation
Interaction
Toolbox