Okay, now considering that there are six billion people, and each one is making multiple resource-use decisions every day, which affect the resources available for other people and other species: how could those objective criteria be applied?

If someone doesn't agree on a given point, then how would you figure out whose view should prevail: the person affected, or the person who is assumed to know better what is important or necessary? For example, how would you decide in an individual case whether a particular resource use were 'necessary' or not? Considering the poverty in the world, would it include your internet usage, and if so, why?

I don't think it can be maintained that there are objective criteria, because a) it still comes down to the opinion of the author of those criteria, and b) even if we accepted that one person should have the right to set down what the criteria are for everyone else, it would still be necessary refer to other factors, such as whether the consumer was taking more than their fair share, who else was affected etc.

Thus even if it were conceded in principle, in practice, the whole world couldn't just stop while waiting for the elite to decide who had the right to take what action.

So will you agree that the criteria distinguishing resource use from resource exploitation cannot be objective, and that they are arbitrary, depending on individual opinion?

But if not, then how do you answer the questions I have posed?

geoffc: Your last post in reply to mine is really scrapping the bottom of the barrel:

"The diverse ecosystems that we destroy are replaced with either monocultures or handicapped polycultures. Species extinction and plagues of vermin are some of the results." -- yes we do cause species extinction but what does it matter to our overall health and prosperity if a species that we have hardly any interaction with goes extinct? We (generally) don't eat polar bears, pandas, furry nose wombat, etc.., We don't use them to create goods. We don't use them as part of a system to help us create food or goods (such as we use honey bees or ladybird beetles). Infact the only thing that we use them for is to look at-- and the vast majority of the population don't even do that! (eg.have you been bothered enough to travel to see them in their "natural" environment?)
Also, yes we do get plagues of vermin but these very rarely cause any great problem in the big scheme of things. For example, when was the last time Australians were dying in mass due to starvation - you'd have to go back to the time before major civilization here to see that! Even with the plagues caused by modern civilization we still have on average healthy, longer and safer lives with a exponentially larger population as compared to peoples who use to live before civilization.

"The recent dust storms are perfect examples of how we fail as a species in this regard."-- actually the recent dust storms originated in the Lake Eyre Basin-- ie: in an area closely resembling your idea of wilderness. In reality dust storms gobally have been decreasing and the reason is: because we have been protecting and improving the productivity of the land. Infact, the reduction in dust storms has had knock-on effect in contributing to reducing fish stock in the sea. The frequent naturally occuring storms use to fertilize the sea with iron particles which increased plankton production which fish ultimately live on. ... continued below...

... from above ...
However, this is a problem which we can easily correct- we just have to throw/spread iron ore over the sea mechanically. Indeed, there are companies that do just that.

"We rarely use fertile soil for growing food (because we have destroyed most of it), finding it easier to utilise fertilisers injected into a barren substrate, leading to a raft of nutritional illnesses that are becoming ever more prevalent in western society."-- this sentence is just plain crazy. We always use the fertile soil in preference to infertile, eg: there's not many farms out in the desert is there. It would be stupid not to! Contrary to what you seem to think, farmers try to protect and improve the soil because it is their livelyhood-- why would they what to destroy it? What are these "nutritional illnesses" that you speak of? Developed societies have the longest life spans, if you wish to see nutritional problems- visit an undeveloped country. In contrast to our lives, many tribal people who use to live "in the wilderness" had constant nutritional problems due to the daily challenge to find enough food to live on. Starvation was common because they had never developed farming and water security-- when droughts or long winters came they died in large numbers.

"Farming via in-the-ground hydroponics is entirely dependent on cheap fossil fuels/abundant nitrogen fertiliser." -- nope, not true. Even, the environmentalists agree (indeed, they are constantly telling us) that we can meet our energy requirements from non-fossil fuel sources: although it would cost a LOT more to do so. As for nitrogen fertilisers-- these commonly use natural gas as an ingredient- however, we don't have to use gas- it is just that gas is the cheapest, there are alternatives. The nitrogen itself comes from the air and is part of the nitrogen cycle- it will never run out as far as humunity is concerned. ...continued below..

.. from above..

"....That high standard of living has nothing to do with the natural world, and everything to do with predation on cheap labour from second and third world countries."-- we don't prey of second and third world countries, they voluntarily trade with us (ie, slavery was abolished a long time ago). The reason why they trade with us is because it improves their standard of living!

"I would advise you pick up a copy of "The Lorax" by Dr Seuss for a rudimentary primer on the knock-on effects of resource exploitation." --hmm, well personally I would prefer to read textbooks and articles in scientific journals. If you prefer to form your world view from children's books then perhaps that reflects the level that you're at?

*by the way: when I typed "6000,000 million people live there with a very high standard of living" that was just a typo- initially I wrote "six million" then overwrote it with digits but obviously I only selected the "six" part. There are other typos in my comments, eg: in the first comment I wrote "effect" instead of "affect" and there's probably some more in this comment.

Thinkabit
"If you prefer to form your world view from children's books then perhaps that reflects the level that you're at?"

LOL

The resource use decisions of those billions are regulated by resource accessibility among other things, which is generally dictated by government. They release land for building, they regulate timber harvesting on private land etc. These are rudimentary mechanisms for managing decisions about what is considered sustainable use and unethical exploitation. Regulations and laws limit supply so use is already limited by certain criteria, whether they're objective or not.

Is it fair to say that for the range or scope of use of particular resources there is a point at which the use becomes damaging to the resource and/or ecosystem in which the resource exists?

ie. We can take fish from a pond to feed ourselves at a certain rate, and at some rate, which is scientifically determinable, we damage the population of fish in that pond such that within a certain timeframe we will no longer be able to take fish from that pond.

This implies (if it is fair to say) that there are objective criteria to distinguish sustainable use from exploitation.

I will admit that in most cases determination of that objective boundary between the two states is beyond our understanding, but then that was one of my premises all along, that we don't have the capacity to know what damage we're doing.

What you have pointed out is that we cannot wait for determinations from some elite, nor will we ever agree as a species. My premise, given these facts, is that we follow the precautionary principle and minimise our impact. A number of commenters here have indicated that they would prefer to ignore any such considerations and allow exploitation to proceed with all haste without even attempting regulation to ensure sustainable use.

Having studied ecology I guess you'd be well aware that nature has the final say. Any population that exceeds carrying capacity always suffers the same fate. I personally have no illusions that we're going to save ourselves from the operation of these natural laws by way of reigning in our greed.