Saltpetre

“Eden” as a myth is a powerful story of human nature, but as an ideal or story of origins it is one of the most dangerous of the contrarian narratives. It imagines a world of simple natural harmony that biology, palaeontology, geology, archaeology and history tell us never existed.

Our current Western way of life is indeed “entrancing” and “rewarding” compared to other models, past and present – especially for "the masses". This not merely a narrow consumerism which values our quality of life by the quantity of our possessions. Our life expectancy, infant mortality, literacy and education, leisure time and opportunities, personal security, and freedom from hunger, disease, violence, enslavement and unconstrained tyranny make us the most fortunate culture and generation that ever existed, in my opinion.

I agree we should look to the welfare and interests of all the inhabitants of the world. We won’t do that by returning to the stone age.

Rhian,

Your point about our exalted state of being as "....the most fortunate culture and generation that ever existed..." is fine as far as a myopic view is concerned. The fact that our mode of living is unsustainable and that it would take many more earths to accommodate the whole of mankind in our manner doesn't seem to figure in your celebration.

One might have thought that our "development" may have been more than technological in that our advancement might have been ethical as well.

No such luck - we celebrate our good fortune and ease, yet fail to acknowledge our obligation to future generations not to despoil their heritage.

Saltpetre. You might have noticed that I had no comment about the moral and ethical issues you raise. I was just challenging the assumptions about Peak Oil, which I suggest is not the problem that it is painted as - there are solutions to that issue.

The author refers to what he sees as three major problems affecting mankind - "peak oil, climate change or the dysfunctional state of our economic system". I mounted an argument that his assumptions about Peak Oil may not be valid.

I could also have argued that his concerns about climate change, or at least that part of climate change that is "caused" by anthropogenic CO2 emissions (which I would guess is his concern), can also be challenged by examination of the real data. Actually, man IS having major impacts, but primarily (as Dr Roger Pielke Sr argues) by land-use factors (deforestation, industrial agriculture, urbanisation etc) which affect local and regional climate. But few of those concerned seem interested in addressing these issues.

I will leave the "dysfunctional state of the economic system" for another time.

Can I point out though that when your whole thesis is based on three major concerns, two of which can be demonstrated not to be concerns, the logical basis of your argument sort of falls in a heap?

Having said all that, I am a strong supporter of Permaculture and other alternative approaches to agriculture (Pat Coleby, Biodynamics, Charles Waters, Peter Andrews and others).

But Poirot, our development IS ethical. Far fewer people die from violence in the developed West than in underdeveloped nations: there is far more freedom, far more democracy and a much more open and publicly-monitored system of law. All the indicators show that financial growth facilitates the growth of better, more sensible, more humane ways of governing and relating to each other. In terms of producing rational, civilised, kindly human beings, wealth and education beat the pants off cultural indoctrination every time.

If you really think a major economic crash is coming -- and there seems to be no reason to think so -- then that will be a disaster for ethics as well as general well-being, and you should regard it with horror and dread as an apocalypse, not an apotheosis.

Poirot

I don’t deny that we have environmental problems, I just think that we can work through them without a return to the dark ages. I also accept that we can’t sustain western lifestyles for all the earth’s population at current consumption patterns, but there’s no reason to believe that current consumption patterns are the only options we will have. The history of economic growth since the industrial revolution is not of doing more of the same, but of economic change through innovation, productivity improvements, capital deepening and substitution of expensive scarce resources with cheaper and more abundant ones. If we continue on this path then everyone’s living standards can be raised sustainably.

I agree there is more to development than economics. Do you not think that western culture’s achievements in the past few centuries represent improvement? Democracy, universal suffrage, abolition of slavery, gender equality, abolition of capital and corporal punishment, free education, welfare for the vulnerable, rule of law …

Jon J is right. Which other contemporary or past culture achieved better outcomes?

Rhian,

All the things you mentioned are a boon for the fortunate West. the flip side, however, is a little more challenging. What happens when trawlers choof consistently along the coast of a third world country and depletes its fish stocks? What of illegal logging and the difficulties of overriding WTO obligations and rules to address it? (see Julie Bishop's article today)

I see what you are saying, and it's all very nice for us to have developed this model for living - but it's often at the expense of people in other situations. Unsustainability is not a negotiable mode of operation. It's a state that eventually leads to the breakdown of systems. All "unchecked" progress leads eventually to this point.

The question for modern industrial man is whether he is capable of tempering his intelligence with wisdom.