“Faster, further, higher!” So it stood large on a postcard that was already in circulation when the famous Club of Rome published its groundbreaking work “Limits of Growth” in 1972. At the bottom of it then the question: “But where?” Almost half a century earlier, the philosophers Ernst Bloch and Herbert Marcuse had analytically intensifished for criticism and differentiation by the term “progress”. The saying is also decades old as a sticker: “We deal with this world, as if we had another one in the trunk.”
The climate is just the tip of the iceberg
“As if we had three more earths in the trunk.” That’s probably what it would have to be called today, according to the latest findings. Only dull ignorants (from the world’s devastating angry Trump to the locally padding blocher) continue to deny this. Against diverse, better knowledge: It is clear that the glaciers will definitely be gone by the end of this century.
But global warming is just one consequence of the totalitarian human growth economy. Energy consumption worldwide is beyond any climate neutrality that only three earths could cover it in the long term.
Sustainably calculated, the resources last year only extend until August. The last third of the year, humanity thrives on the world’s supplies, plundering the Earth for the future.
Wear economy prepares healthy world
What to do? to do without! That is the answer to this question everywhere. In advance on air travel, of course. The fact that climate-grabbing students no longer want to fly on their maturity is the least of the consequence of their well-founded demands. They didn’t have to reckon with that for long. The relevant information is available.
Unfortunately, this is not the case everywhere. On the contrary: On product packaging, consumers are often foiled with a healthy world. Brown chickens in green mat on the egg pack about. But the chicken that laid the eggs in it never saw even a blade of grass throughout its life. Before we are all morally obliged, we should be properly informed of the damage and suffering that our consumption causes to people, animals and the environment.
Repairing rather than investing would quickly ruin profit economy
The calls for renunciation cannot be meant seriously anyway: Would “we all” follow the principle “repair instead of invest” or follow the motto of our world war elders: “Don’t buy what You can use, buy what You can’t afford to lose!”, whole sectors of the economy would be bankrupt within a year.
At the same time, we consumers could easily do so. Three years without new clothes and shoes. Thousands of shoe and clothing stores would have to close. But even the poorest among us would not yet come in such jaded trouser legs or purified sweaters and shirts as we see them historically on anchor pictures. Or currently in reports from shantytowns worldwide.
Without pointing out this systemic problem, the magazine (No. 13) of the Tages-Anzeiger recently published a compilation of the environmental impact of individual consumption habits. Tastes:
A horse (formerly a farm animal with farmers and cavalrymen, today recreational and ornamental animals for women between the ages of 14 and 30) is about harming every year as much as if its keeper were driving 24,000 kilometres wide with her car … (which she often does).
Very bad: A café crème damages like a kilometre ride on the Range Rover (to the pickling …).
This is very interesting. However, giving up ornamental animals or air travel remain only nice gestures to calm individual conscience.
The man is the Problem
In order to change fundamentally only in the tendency, it would need rapid decisions of the globalized minority, which has power in politics and economy. There are men in the oppressive majority.
If the majority of women were at the crucial points, there would be much more hope for the urgently needed change. Of men hardly. On the contrary, only more free trade agreements, even more privatisations (up to drinking water) and, above all, ever-increasing growth. The importance of the women’s strike day of 14 June is also evident here. June.
In the Tagesschau from May, 28 the “surprisingly positive growth figures” of the economy for the first half of the year 2019 were once again celebrated uncritically. No word about the fact that this growth is largely “imported” thanks to the net migration of several people per year. And the individual working people bring the growth little. To the first on May 15 the BZ reported on this: “two lost years for the employees”. Would be added: But at the same time massive profits for large shareholders.
Those who point out all this are immediately decayed by the governmentalist and media propagandists of the system with the manslaughter Argument “populism”. For example, the WTO and WTI Representative Thomas Cottier recently on the Radio: he was pleased that his WTO has now been able to reduce duty tariffs from 40 to just 4 percent. More and more developing countries could export their agricultural products to us.
Devastating consequences of the world trade insanity
Talking like this is both cynical and arrogant: it has long been established that it is not these “developing countries” (and certainly not the working people living in them) who export there, but groups operating worldwide. Local farmers are often brutally expelled from their country by these new WTO colonialists.
World Trade is also having devastating consequences in Europe: smaller dairy farmers (with less than 100 cows!) have to abandon their farms-because they no longer yield. For this purpose, the “unrestrained” trade under the protection of the WTO approaches milk thousands of kilometers far from New Zealand to Paris. In the Swiss forests, 10 million cubic meters of wood grow each year. However, half of this high-quality plant, fuel and building material is not used. Meanwhile, wood is imported from far away. Only: if we wanted to create a sustainable programme for the preferred domestic use of wood with long - needed legislation, WTO and EU courts would immediately ban it.
“National priority for everything” would be imperative of the hour
We would tend to have a national priority for almost everything (for employees, for building materials, for food) slowly to set the course for a low - transport and transport economy “from the Region to the Region”. Smart left and Green have long been calling for”intelligent and solidarity protectionism”.
Sturer growth faith in power centers
In vain: in the decisive power centers around the world, there continues to be dull disrespectfulness. In Africa, it was “necessary to invest in ports, roads and airports,” said about the chief economist of the world Bank, Penny Goldberg. The aviation industry will be happy to hear that. Their order books are full. By 2037, almost 40,000 new aircraft are to be rolled out of the assembly halls and put into operation worldwide. Then, a total of 48,000 civil aircraft around the world are expected to Jets. As one of the worst climate and environmental disasters, Aviation has been paying zero taxes on the kerosene fuel that the aircraft burn since 1944.
But the World Bank calls for more airports in Africa than fewer aircraft in the sky. “Privatization, deregulation and free trade”, this “trinity of economic development still guaranteed growth in parts of the world,” announced Goldberg. “One of the reasons we support free trade is that trade can deal with poor institutions.”
1822 billion for military, war and destruction
This applies in particular to the “free trade” of arms and arms goods worldwide. There is a rather systematic circumvention. A total of $ 1822 billion in taxpayers ‘ money has been spent by the governments of this world on destruction devices in 2018. The look was aptly titled: “Planet of weapons”. The editor could have put the “W” in brackets – so, however, probably offended the mostly peaceful monkeys.
In concrete terms, the military budget for “so dangerous Russians” reaches a good 70 billion dollars. By way of comparison, the US military power, which is the world’s permanent war leader, cost $650 billion a year. Their terrorist organization Nato a total of $1000 billion. In the Western Mainstream media, China, which is constantly described as “threatening”, is just $250 billion.
Every year an entire German people additionally
We’re not paying for military and war. While billions of people have barely enough to live on. And there will be more and more: at the beginning of this year lived on Earth 7.6 billion people. Almost twice as many, as 40 years ago. And every day a net of 230,000 will be added – more than 80 million per year-or the entire population of Germany. By the end of this century, the number of the world’s population is expected to double again to around 15 billion.
This development is one of the foundations for ruinous economic growth. And this growth is of no use to the vast majority. According to the UN, 40 million children are undernourished only in India. Worldwide, a child starves every five seconds (or almost 20,000 per day). In Germany, 7 million pensioners are impoverished. In short, humanity, which now mercilessly exploits everything and every thing on “its” planet, is, nevertheless, a majority rather bad.
“A good life” – for how many people?
In his book “The Principel of Humanity”, the Canadian-British philosopher Ted Hondrich pointed to this maladministration as early as 1990 – and called six conditions for “a good life“:
- Worthy life length (so not to have to die in Unzeit)
- Physical Well-Being
- Freedom and strength enough to determine his own life in different situations
- Respect and self-respect
- Good social relations
- Good access to culture
The fact that more and more people in the world often live badly – and at the same time destroy the livelihoods of the world more quickly, the better they live: the UN has long recognized this as an unsustainable state. It calls every year on World Population Day on July, 11 the commission announced its intention to take countermeasures. To more self-determination of women and better access to birth control resources for all.
With little success. The question of how many people could live equally well and sustainably on Earth in the long term is still tabooed. The ideological foundations for endless growth and world destruction lie in Christianity (“subjugate the earth, be fruitful and multiply you!”), in Marxism (total development of means of production and transport), as well as in capitalism even more so.
Economy needs people-instead of vice versa
Capitalism is now pushing the majority of humanity into a sad existence: they should live as cheaply as possible where the profit economy needs them. If they are no longer needed, they can leave freely again. There is a tangled Situation: many people have to live in an uproar somewhere in order to operate, instead of being able to operate sustainably where they were born, in order to live well. The fact that the workforce in the deregulated and free-of-persons market is supposed to travel behind capital, where the capitalist is planning to invest, is part of this evil reality. Good life has little to do with it.
Green talk of a “10-Millonen-Switzerland”
But even left-wing and green politicians continue to sing the perilous-ruinous song of market freedom and economic growth. This was demonstrated drastically during the debates about the Ecopop Initiative “Stop the overpopulation-to secure the natural basis of life”, which was clearly rejected by the people in 2014. Their supporters were denounced as “eco fascists” without much substantive argument. And even green politicians fabricated: “a 10 million Switzerland” is certainly “feasible”. This is what we are doing here now, and by the end of the year we will live again from the resources of the Earth.
10 billion in the world
From a sustainably green perspective, the question of the sustainable number of “well-living” people would have to be raised as a matter of urgency. As far as possible, environmentally compatible and human-friendly approaches to turning away from growth should be developed.
It is certain that this is no longer the case: more and more people are destroying their natural livelihoods faster and faster with more and more products. In view of these facts, the number of 10 billion people worldwide would probably be sustainable. And in theory, there is hope: experts have calculated that with the 1822 military billions annually the total fossil fuel consumption could be replaced within 20 years (up to 2040) by sustainable electricity production. Theoretically – but it would be urgent.
The Aral Lake in Kazakhstan, which has been dried up since 1975 by nonsense human economy, is now recovering after corrective measures with artificial dams. The first people returned in the long-abandoned fishing villages. This shows that Hope Dies Last. But the “limits of growth”, which were calculated in Rome 50 years ago, have long been exceeded. As it looks now, everything is going-profitable for a few and always uncomfortable for almost all others- “ faster, farther, higher-but where? To Ruin!”