Question:
How can we create sustainable communities so we stop using up resources faster than they can be replaced?
2006-10-02 04:06:57 UTC
This question was asked at the Dropping Knowledge event on 9th September by Cat Matlock, 36, North Carolina, USA. To find out more about Dropping Knowledge check out our blog:

Dropping Knowledge in the UK: http://uk.blog.360.yahoo.com/blog-qT1KKPQoRKdVT4lowpJCljbFokkuIzI8?p=1048

Dropping Knowledge in the US: http://blog.360.yahoo.com/blog-d8pH0dcoRKeB12yOcnUQp.9VCFos?p=12745

To discuss this subject in more detail follow this link to the official Dropping Knowledge website: http://www.droppingknowledge.org/bin/posts/focus/15088.page
63 answers:
jeffo
2006-10-02 22:46:48 UTC
I believe that education, awareness and research are the key. Any successful government operates within the parameters of what society wants. We have nobody to blame but our collective selves.



Sustainable communities must make economic sense if they are to be embraced by the masses. Humans are simply not altruistic enough to make choices otherwise. Research on more efficient and economical infrastructure must prevail.



An example is gas-powered automobiles. The emissions are huge, but it is gas prices and their drain on the economy that will lead to change. Is research up to the challenge?



In this example, I believe that the answer will lie in fuel-cell or battery-powered cars. We are very quickly reaching feasability in these two options. However, they both still require an energy source. I don't like it more than anyone else, but the only feasible option to replace all of that petroleum energy seems to be nuclear. Other alternative energies will play a large role, but nuclear stands out as playing a large, necessary part. No other alternative energy offers the necessary potential magnitude, plain and simple.



How do we make nuclear energy safe? More research is needed here. For too long, we've avoided the question. There are options for nuclear waste, if we pursue them.



Thorium reactors may be able to recycle much of this, and cannot be used as nuclear weapons. This could alone provide a solution to several current political crisises.



The ultimate solution likely lies in an entirely opposite breed of nuclear reactors: Fusion Reactors. These would operate the same way stars such as our sun do. They would offer an almost unlimited energy supply with just about zero nuclear waste. It is, most likely, our future.



I have not even touched on many of the issues necessary to have a fully sustainable community. I can't answer everything, but I do believe that there is light at the end of every tunnel. The common theme is that we will not see that light until economics and education guide us there, and research allows us to finally walk through.
sadye
2016-03-11 06:07:47 UTC
What a question. It is speculated that the current population of the world is due in large part to the flood of oil in this day and age. However the flow of oil is down a lot in just the last few years. We shall see what happens next. In the mean time if we are to have a sustainable community, we shall require a community that is able to produce what it needs in close proximity. Parts, for housing, transportation, clothing, food, manufacturing, and energy, must all be local. Some locations are better suited for these things. So some areas will fare better than others. So I suppose the question is, where do you live and how well set are you? What do you know how to do? What skills do you have? Are you able to garden? Can you build a home with solar gain in mind? Can you produce energy that is usable? Can you build things? Can you repair things? Can you cook? Can and bottle and preserve your food? Where does your water come from? How secure is it? The only real sustainable community is one that can stand by its self. Without the regular semi loads of things to your local grocery store, how long can your area last? How long can you last? I suppose part of what it takes to make a sustainable community is having self sufficient families and individuals. So if you want to know if you have a community that is sustainable, look in the mirror, and ask, am I self sufficient? And there will be your answer.
john d
2006-10-02 21:12:09 UTC
What a question. It is speculated that the current population of the world is due in large part to the flood of oil in this day and age. However the flow of oil is down a lot in just the last few years. We shall see what happens next. In the mean time if we are to have a sustainable community, we shall require a community that is able to produce what it needs in close proximity. Parts, for housing, transportation, clothing, food, manufacturing, and energy, must all be local. Some locations are better suited for these things. So some areas will fare better than others. So I suppose the question is, where do you live and how well set are you? What do you know how to do? What skills do you have? Are you able to garden? Can you build a home with solar gain in mind? Can you produce energy that is usable? Can you build things? Can you repair things? Can you cook? Can and bottle and preserve your food? Where does your water come from? How secure is it? The only real sustainable community is one that can stand by its self. Without the regular semi loads of things to your local grocery store, how long can your area last? How long can you last? I suppose part of what it takes to make a sustainable community is having self sufficient families and individuals. So if you want to know if you have a community that is sustainable, look in the mirror, and ask, am I self sufficient? And there will be your answer.



If the answer is no, then the next question should be, what do I need to do. And what ever the answer is to that, is where you begin. You can't expect your community to do it if you have not done it your self.
Am
2006-10-03 13:17:02 UTC
easy, change how we live and where we live.

...



We should focus on better integrated communities where you don't have to go far for a school a hospital a food store and restoraunts ... you get my drift...

Should be more pedestrian friendly...



We should build things with stuff that is renuable and sustainable...



we should practice and participate in giving back from what we take... for instance, why not make every roof top a living green roof top? Why not grow what we need on those roof tops?

Instead of concreat jungles, why not have real plant jungles everywhere we go...

the side walks become soft green walk ways or smooth rocky paths, and beside them are a line of trees and other plants...

Every parking deck be covered in solar pannels and mini wind mills and instead of white parking lines we could have plants planted where we should be parking inbetween with a bumper around them so we don't run over them when messing up parking LOL

;-)

Come on....

just be creative and as green and community oriented as possible ... we'll come up with ways together

;-)



::: Peace :::
2006-10-03 04:06:55 UTC
The establishment of sustainable communities calls for founding an alliance of citizens who care and earnestly desire to change the way things are.Once a nucleus of such like-minded folks gets formed in a place, they can network and pool resources and information and acquire pieces of Real Estate which are amenable to such development.Fortunately quite a significant chunk of the Architects fraternity has veered around to advocate sustainability as a key issue in Town and Country Planning.



The next in line to change are the Real Estate lobby. If they find that the fashionable lot are shifting to sustainable Housing and Community facilities, they will find ways to sell the idea to the middle class who constitute their major clientele.A few such model Housing Colonies will serve as triggers and set in motion a large scale movement towards sustainable living.



Here I would like to draw a parallel to the installation of Community Security cover in the Residential Communities. Initially this was considered a fad of the well heeled. But today most Residential Housing Communities have common security asa routine facility.
Mimi Di
2006-10-02 20:54:18 UTC
Start with my generation:the Baby Boomers.

Groups of friends should get together and create communities that have private housing and a community building (CoHousing).



They can have a community garden to grow food and they can pool resources. They can help each other to build, repair, remodel their homes and set up a barter system for goods and services amongst themselves. On a larger scale, they can trade goods and services with other cohousing communities. Some will have retired lawyers, medical professionals, marketing & design people, architects, chefs and any number of other skills and talents. Keep a "yellow page" style directory of skills and talents people are willing to donate and keep a trade board online and in a community building where you can post what you need and see if someone else can give that to you.



Recycle neighborhoods by pooling your money and purchasing entire blocks and creating these co-housing communities within cities and buy up old/closed summer camps and turn them into senior communities complete with nurses, cooks, driver and anything else seniors need.



The nightmare of assisted living for the multi millions of us who will need it over the next 20 years could be lessened greatly by creating this smaller communities. And the real beauty is that you can continue to live around friends and family members instead of the sad reality of strangers in nursing homes like my parents generation suffered. Our kids would have much less concern over our well being knowing we were in a community of friends our age and hey- we'd all be listening to the same music!



The way to create sustainable communities is to learn to share what we have with others. If EVERYONE has some things, then NO ONE will have no things.
2016-12-04 08:13:19 UTC
ok, you're VERY widely used. that is why you have to be anti-unlawful. a million) There are racists on all sides. they're in simple terms jumping on the bandwagons pondering that's determination to their twisted ends. yet that would not recommend a lot anti-illegals are racists. 2) We let about 100,000 Mexicans into the united states each and every twelve months legally. 3) Illegals do not seem assimilated into our united states. There are massive numbers of them in the united states. (they can make a chief sized united states all on their own.) Giving this a lot of human beings citizenship will take political power sparkling of the interior reach born electorate and from the naturalized licensed immigrants. the majority inhabitants in southern states might want to very without complications develop into foreigners that were born outdoors the united states. that's kinda frightening. The president needs to be an section born united states citizen for a purpose. We ought to anticipate the vast majority of united states electorate in any state to be familiar born electorate. that would want to look unfair, even with the indisputable fact that now no longer least confusing is this their birthright, that's continually a attitude to be particular in simple terms about all have allegience to the united states. 4) Illegals KNEW they were no longer meant to go back suitable right here. They began households suitable right here understanding they could be deported and it might want to damage their kin. Deportation is the common consequences of their movements and isn't any longer meant to be a punishment. that's only the law. 5) Granting those illegals rights will inspire extra illegals to go back over. 6) Granting those illegals legalized acceptance will create a help community for sort spanking new illegals. they are going to easily harbor illegals and employ illegals. Then this nonsense takes position everywhere once extra in 15 years with even extra illegals.
warped_factor_ten
2006-10-03 10:09:12 UTC
What about telecommuting? We use up a whole lot of resources just getting to work on a daily basis. What if each neighborhood had an office hub which had all of the infrastructure needed for secure networking, virtual conferences, plus other common resources. It could sure cut down a lot on congestion, which would also make a significant impact on gasoline consumption (and air quality).
2006-10-02 16:07:03 UTC
Well first of all you have to have a community that agrees on all of the things you want to do. That is the problem in most countries now. People simply agree to disagree on how things are to be done.



Unfortunately the world is as diverse as the oceans are deep so you will never find a group of people that all agree on the same thing or what is right for the community or on a global scale the world.



That is called the human factor. If every person had exactly the same amount style and color of clothes, shoes, house, car, and food and mate then there would be no need to struggle for more or different things. Stealing and robbery and murder would stop because who wants to steal what everyone else has especially if they can't sell it because no one needs it and why kill someone if they are exactly like you. You might as well commit suicide if you don't like yourself because everyone else is exactly like you and has exactly the same things. There would be no need to kill or make war except for religion. And if you made all religions the same and everyone believed in the same god or no god at all then there would be no need to kill for belief of religion or faith.



In conclusion, there will never be a self sustaining community because you will always have the people that have and the people that have not. There will always be a need and desire for more and that will kill any chance of coexisting peacefully in this world with any other culture.
bev
2006-10-02 18:50:36 UTC
get off the high horse.

all politicians work up scale, jump in where they can and commit to seeing a tight ship, bs they can't see the fact if you gave them too much power that it will only make you more distanced from it. first law of get the job, the guy that know how to get the job is always the worst guy to do the job,politicians put all funds ear marked back in the general funds so you can pilfer them if there ear marked for certain things they are going to be in your hands. each of the people who get to where they can do something don't so try to hand us something else okay, the top of the economy is full and merry and stable by to balance this funds are taken from the disabled and the handicapped to balance the budgets and always were. the trickle down theory sucks and the politicians are just like everybody else they get their and get lazy, half of the charity worker padded up real well when the coast got hit and the people offered to collect for the people in Louisiana,abuse, but that the back wash of 911 that most people got flatten out and never will recover and trying to do good by seeing jumping in at community service to hold the line says business as usual.. so why do you look like just another angle to pull alil' more off the bottom, in name of good cause of course!
IWasWondering
2006-10-02 14:52:58 UTC
Hmm, where to start.... where to start....



First, you need to be more specific about "communities". If you're talking about new sub-urban developments, then doing things like zoning and building regulations can go far to decrease the distance people must travel for school, stores and most community services. BTW, in a free country, you can't force people to live near their workplace.



If you are talking cities in general, the problem quickly starts to get out of hand. A "healthy city", by most accounts, is a place where jobs are plentiful, schools are good, crime is low and the cost of living is reasonable. Now, unfortunately, some of these are competing interests. Lots of jobs will eventually draw lots of people, from near and far. Packing all these people into a close area, which for commuting purposes would be best, starts raising the cost of housing and increasing the crime rate. You also have that thorny problem that jobs, solid middle class jobs and upper-middle class jobs, often involve very dirty industry. If not in that specific city, somewhere else.



So, for instance, if telecommuting solves the problem of car emissions, does it also solve the problem of toxic wastes created by the electronic manufacturing process?



Also the question of "creating communities" is a questionable practice. Generally, people live where they were born, unless economic or social factors influence them to move.



In short, you cannot artificially create sustainable communities. They inevitably grow beyond their sustainability model or fail.



This being said, you can insist on better urban planning and higher efficiencies of everyday items. These will slow the depletion of resources.
Jenn M
2006-10-03 00:12:36 UTC
Encourage the spread of knowledge and information about resource use through everyday activities. Practice conservation at home and in the workplace. Use your dollars to vote and show support for sustainable farming in lieu of the corn-driven economy. Join a CSA (community supported agriculture). Read The Omnivore's Dilemma.



http://www.eatwild.com



http://www.eatlocalchallenge.com/
James C
2006-10-02 19:30:23 UTC
Unfortunately, the dynamics of capitalism prevent such a utopian aspiration from ever being realized. The goal for corporations will always be to sell more and more, thus use more and more. Conservation is the antithesis of capitalism and they could never coexist. The very creation of a sustainable community would collapse capitalistic society. This is one of the few things that Marx got right.
The Oracle Of Portland Maine
2006-10-02 20:10:59 UTC
This can be accomplished by turning back the clock and doing away with one single item that is and will be the fuel to the downfall of society. Money.



Turn the Dollar, The Pound, The Deutch mark, The Yen, and any other form of currency into museum objects.



Bring back the barter system and bring responsibility to the fore front of every community.
mj
2006-10-02 04:30:01 UTC
this is somthing everybody is thinking these days.....sustainable communities won't be an easy task...but the 1st step towards it...is knowledge about what it really is....this should be given to each and every individual...especially the young people. 'coz they really are the ones who will be most affected if our resources exhaust.



once that is done....trees should be planted at a greater rate than they r cut. and simultaneously water conservation should follow in every town and every house. especially during rain. a lot of water(which is better than that water which poor people actually drink!!!)



according to me these 2 are the main things for a sustainable community
nora22000
2006-10-02 23:47:07 UTC
My favorite ways to build a sustainable community are:



Use only secondhand stores.



Weigh my garbage weekly and reduce each week.



Attend all local yard sales and hold one frequently.



Shop at local stores, including the weekly farmer's market.
ohlia
2006-10-02 19:22:02 UTC
Curb immigration. Illegal immigrants are a huge burden on the country's' resources. Schools, medical institutions and facilities, the job industry. Illegal immigrants are a huge burden to the economical well being and resources of the country. The social stature of the American society is degraded by the low-class scums that entered this country. America is loosing it's value and what it stands for because of the immigrants illegally crossing the border.
regerugged
2006-10-03 04:23:04 UTC
I do not agree with the premise of the question. Who determined that we are using resources faster than they can be replaced? I am not aware of any resources in short supply. We have resources that have not yet been tapped. For example: oil shale in the Western US. It is there, just too difficult and expensive to separate oil from shale.........so far.

I have seen a report of an underground water supply in South America, so vast that it can supply all of the world's fresh water needs. It is just too expensive to pump it out and deliver it to where needed, like West Africa.

We have nuclear breeder-reactors that can actually create! nuclear fuel. So far, they are perceived to be dangerous.
toddk57@sbcglobal.net
2006-10-02 19:32:05 UTC
Well Knowlage: it is called inflation gas o line went up $2.00per

gallon here and According to more police protection for our

citys also countys state wide recycling programs name a few

keep kids off streets & drugs also out of gangs stop polluting

our water source & air ways ect
fatsausage
2006-10-03 03:03:48 UTC
Very strict Birth Control controlled by the Government - similar to China. All Priests would distribute Free Condoms from Monday to Saturday - eight hour days.
2006-10-07 21:36:50 UTC
By Taxing the heavy polluters, the wasters,

the literers. By cash incentives to recyclers,

reushers. Have all our foods and items in reuseable containers. By reducing the use of chemicals. By not over use of one thing over another. Even Jesus said: "Moderation in all things.. nay unto one unto another" I think that means.. Moderation in everything.. not to favour one thing over another. Unfortunately Gas companies favour Gas and Electric Companies favour Electricity.. If they got together it probably be better and there'd probably be more balanced use of each! Also

things like bicycles and Horse drawn wagons useage should be encouraged one way to cut down on pollution!
2006-10-02 17:54:24 UTC
Take over the world and allocate them less than what they can comprimise world resources.

Otherwise, you will not able to stop world resources being over-used regardless of plans to get some people to be environmentally friendly.
"Call me Dave"
2006-10-02 04:30:04 UTC
Some societies such as the USA are sustainable if population growth can be pegged back to zero or slightly less, and lfestyles adjusted so that food and fuel grown equals food and fuel used.

USA had a good productive farmland to population ratio.

The UK needs a 75% population Cull to achieve this and Bangla Desh, India, China more nearly 90%

Whilst nuclear war could easilyachiveve these reductions the political will to make change nescessary for sustainability is not there. Too much nonsense spouted about Americans using too much rescources. Wrong. It is too many people in countries with no rescoures having kids. China has it right with 1 kid per family . Africa has made a start on population reduction with aids and the UK had achieved indigenous population decrease with economic pressures, in particular, preventing employed people having large familys, and high levels of childless Shirtlifters etc already but sadly we need to reverse immigration to achieve sustainability
carpetbagger
2006-10-02 10:22:19 UTC
Go back in time, drop world population to 1900's rate or use the imagination and create the conditions necessary to accomplish that objective, sounds sarcastic, it is.

The tools are there, and so are the resources, but where is the political decision to a change everything that needs to be changed for the greater good? Spending money in war efforts and domination instead of....So you see, we know what is it that needs to be changed, but who is holding it back?. If you find the force that prevents us from doing what is best for the majority and you make it (the force) adopt the necessary changes, then living in a sustainable community could be possible, other wise ( most likely) we are doomed.

That is what I think. Pessimist but real.

Of course there are a lot of great ideas as to how we could live better and not ruin the resources and environment,

but the strong imposes on the weak, as natural law states or as the evidence teaches us all. Two points please. Thanks.
2006-10-02 05:32:36 UTC
The first thing you have to do is to take governmental control and licensing out of the mix. They will for their own benefit, bury anything that will effect their economic basis and produce governmental independence. Then you open the discussion up to the masses. The ideas are out there but the implementations are controlled and suppressed by industry, which in turn is govermentally controlled and funded.
Just Thinking
2006-10-02 17:04:27 UTC
Its not that people dont know and its not that people dont want to know its generally the fact that alternatives are much more expensive than what is generally available, a reverse in this and you would find more people willing to buy, use and recycle alternative even non-renewable man made resources. The governments make more money from current non-renewable resources and its not in their best interests to assist people in the community, it is my belief that when we run out they will step in and do something.
designer_brian
2006-10-02 14:32:25 UTC
We need to start by placing ecology as the most important facet of education. Not only ecology, but different realms of ecology.



The reason this is important is that active sustainment Will take decades to implement. If we were active about the notion of not self-destructing and made progress starting today, it would take 30 years to see use full and broadly implemented sustainment.



Design disciplines, sheltering, food, recycling, etc are of course some of the intent of an actively regenerating community. So, it is about mandating such education.



Without higher learning we will not create tools. Without tools there is not any research. Without any research there isn't any ideas and innovation.
Mary
2017-03-05 07:07:23 UTC
1
?
2006-10-02 23:38:06 UTC
Only by distopian societies. Either you have a polIce state;("1984", George Orwell) or you drug people( "Harrison Bergeron" by Kurt Vonnegut) or you manufacture people("Brave New World" by I forget....)The main problem is population. Look at China, and their attempt at birthrate control. A sustainable community is not possible in a democratic society. one has to let go of individual rights and focus on "social responsibility" in order to create a sustainable community.
2006-10-02 19:07:31 UTC
you can't ... unless you want civilization/humanity to stagnate and stop progressing.



progress requires the enormous "wasting" of resources. sorry thats just the way it is.



oh no we are running out of resources ... quick everyone start conserving. Well you can conserve your way out of a short term crisis. But conservation is not a long term solution.



Just a short stop on the way to rationing. Rationing ... as a long term solution ... oh boy ... you don't want to go down that road.



Need more resources ... bah ... you have all the resources you need for the next 1,000,000 years. What you don't have is anyway to get to them.
pessimoptimist
2006-10-02 12:26:30 UTC
First, limit your families to two children or less. Over-population is one of the primary sources of our environmental crises. STOP using disposables...paper towels, cleaning products like Swiffer,paper plates, foam cups, etc. (you managed to tote the food to the picnic, tote your dishes back home and wash them) We should tax the heck out of all recyclables. Where would that money go? Take your pick, schools, highways, lop something off the property tax, use it to help defray the cost of the extra time, equipment and manpower required to pick up the separated-for-recycling trash. Every community should have mandatory recycling of everything that can be recycled, which is practically everything: plastics, aluminum and other metals, paper and newsprint, old tires, appliances. Put big enough fines on people who are caught not separating their trash, so that they will think twice before doing it again. Things which are still usable should not be discarded, but donated to charitable organizations. The old adage, fix it up, wear it out, do without should apply. Don't drive when you can walk or pedal your bicycle. It's healthier for both you and the environment. Water your lawns during the water-efficient hours. Stop hosing down your sidewalks, use a broom!

I'd wager that there isn't more than 20% of you out there that couldn't do without 50% of the stuff you buy every week and not even miss it! I could go on and on, but you get the idea. First and foremost, though, is to not just limit population growth, but to stop it, even reduce it. Nothing will do any good if our numbers just keep increasing.
Sam X9
2006-10-02 20:13:57 UTC
Proper dissimination of information through education. Orient members of the community in the family values and its important role in the society.
2006-10-02 13:58:06 UTC
The government has such a hold over everything, do you really think that a neighborhood lets say with all solar powered resources will ever come to be. I Say Never.



I could go on and on about the unlimited resources that we have the knowledge to use but for reasons other than our own it is kept just out of reach and the COST is far beyond the average families income.
NANCY K
2006-10-03 08:47:09 UTC
"It Takes A Village"



by Hillary Rodham Clinton
2006-10-02 13:35:36 UTC
You are approaching this question wrong. It is not about current resources being depleted it is about creating new resources. If we come at this question as you have proposed. During the 1800s we used whale oil for our lanterns and so we saved the whales by creating electricity. I know the whales are back into trouble but for a different reason
iknowtruthismine
2006-10-02 05:43:27 UTC
Population must be reduced to two billion on the planet, or we don't stand a chance of coming into balance with the Earth's ability to sustain Human life at a meaningful level. Religions will have to stop trying to out-breed each other, either by education or by force. There is no other choice, there is far to little time.
Ola L
2006-10-03 05:50:08 UTC
Not a problem at all. When we start running out, prices will rise. Then finding ways to use less will be the cheapest thing to do, and we will do it.

(By then we will have done huge damage to the environment on this planet, but that is another question entirely)
2006-10-03 00:23:20 UTC
We can't. Any community (nation) that voluntarily chooses to limit it's use of natural resources will inevitably be overtaken by communities who use their natural resources to the fullest. The common addage about "keeping up with the Joneses" is equally true on a global scale. Sorry, but true.
Rtoups
2006-10-02 22:40:21 UTC
Well we could start by recycling used goods. And planting your own garden to help cut down on buying from the grocery store would help.
BMC
2006-10-03 07:26:57 UTC
With technology and the Urban Main Street projects of the United States of America
tay_jen1
2006-10-03 03:54:30 UTC
education, education, education. Also people who use up resources often do so in order to survive. (cutting down forests for firewood to cook and keep warm.) eradicate the need for the use of these resources and we will be a step closer
ecogeek4ever
2006-10-02 06:47:13 UTC
1) Reduce - limit the amount of products purchased.



2) Reuse - Don't buy new products... buy used, get things fixed instead of throwing them away, and limit the amount of disposable products.



3) Recycle - everything that can be recycled -- also buy products that advertise the highest percentage of recycled material.
2006-10-03 00:57:31 UTC
Family planning all men marry but no having children.
Eric Inri
2006-10-03 02:14:51 UTC
Capitalism makes people pay for what they use.

National Borders keep people from stealing from their neighbors.

If the government taxed gasoline instead of income to pay for roads and other transportation expenses, people would use less gasoline.
2006-10-02 23:38:37 UTC
use nuclear warhead energy to power them. the big problem is not resources it is distributing them. and reducing polution.

One of the major problems is how to eliminate the deliberate bottlenecks in the distribution chain because those bottle necks are so profitable. Every place that gets nuclear warhead energy released on them would have no more problems.
no nickname
2006-10-02 21:49:38 UTC
The key word here is pride. Pride in ownership. Most people will stay in one place if they and all the neighbors have pride in their communities.
2006-10-02 11:40:26 UTC
It's a pipe dream . Never happen . Everyone wants the same thing deep down, but no one is willing to sacrifice for it. It's called feel good politics, and it makes for good six o-clock news but nothing more.The third world countries want what we have techno wise, and will not stop until they grow as we have and obtain it. In the mean time politicians put us on a guilt trip and do the exact opposite.Socialism only works great on paper!
511@
2006-10-02 20:18:12 UTC
The only way we can do this is by getting rid of Bush as President and by electing someone who acknowledges all humanity.
2006-10-02 13:34:09 UTC
By giving so called " sustainable communities " the force of law.
2006-10-03 01:28:20 UTC
Little children were at loss with our creator's gifts of life vital for their own survival being overlook on planet earth.

Were at loss on the creation of planet earth all the gifts of life being overlook on planet earth.

How they all kick the butts of parents, teachers and the dirty old men over the blunders and slip-ups with human errors being overlook on planet earth.

Decode this lyrics" Everything is beautiful"

But everyone is kicking the butts of our creator and threw our creator out into "The Street of London' being overlook on planet earth.
KoKo
2006-10-02 11:22:40 UTC
go back to small, rural communities. Look at the Amish for an example. They are pretty self sustaining.
ỉη ץ٥ڵ
2006-10-02 08:57:38 UTC
creating a sustainable community is actually quite easy. give me seven years and we are there.

the real trick is to create a sustainable lifestyle and create excitement and enthusiasm about following such a lifestyle.
largegrasseatingmonster
2006-10-02 13:31:17 UTC
Either by unleashing a plague that will wipe out A LOT of people, like the bird flu, or by cutting people off at one child per person (two per couple), and being VERY harsh on rapists.
2006-10-02 21:17:23 UTC
Do away with advanced technology. Good luck.
Mark C
2006-10-02 04:16:01 UTC
By continued education of all people so that politicians are forced to take such issues seriously.
kurticus1024
2006-10-02 11:43:20 UTC
Its not gonna, happen. I guess. Too bad.



I do voluntary poverty sometimes to help pay off credit cards and just to test how it feels.



Resources get used mostly to the extent that people want to use them and can almost afford them.
CUSTODIAN JOE
2006-10-02 20:23:12 UTC
Education of the people and extensive recycling
J.SWAMY I ఇ జ స్వామి
2006-10-03 03:36:15 UTC
Communist countries all over the world tried just that and failed. They experimented on their own people and supplied laboratory proof.
2006-10-02 13:29:01 UTC
By overcoming the greed of individuals who and coming together for change, but it will not happen under human rule.
Alex
2006-10-02 23:04:44 UTC
The issue of sustainability is incredibly complex, but in order to grasp all that's involved and some of the critical steps that are necessary, one must re-examine our culture from a different perspective. To start, I recommend the following books:



"The Ecology of Commerce" - Paul Hawken

"Mid-course Correction" - Ray Anderson

"Ishmael", "The Story of B", and "My Ishmael" - Daniel Quinn



These are just the books I've read so far, but I'm sure there are others along the same vein.



The root of our problem boils down to our cultural "vision," which sees nature as something to be dominated and controlled. It holds that competitors are to be eliminated and continual growth is praiseworthy. It separates us from the natural order, but, as we'll eventually find out (one way or another), it does not exclude us from the laws of nature. This cultural vision is responsible for our unsustainable population growth, which underlies all of our resource consumption problems.



So the first step towards a sustainable future is a changed vision -- one of participating in nature, and not trying to dominate it or lift ourselves above it. As Daniel Quinn puts it, programs only impede visions. They don't change what's happening. We don't need more conservation programs; we need a new vision of sustainability... to replace our current vision of world domination. We need changed minds, not unchanged minds and more conservation programs.



The second most important step, once a new vision has started to spread, is to reduce the human population. Humans are the most numerous mammal on the planet, and our population is still growing rapidly. Even at our existing rate of growth (1.2% annually), we will double our current population (6.5 billion) in roughly 60-70 years. Our rapid expansion over the past few centuries has been the ultimate cause of poverty, famine, crime, war, and nearly all other social ills. Unfortunately, our expansion has gone unabated for so long that there will be no humane method for solving this global crisis in a timely manner. Sadly, we need something to randomly cull our population to a mere fraction of its current size. Furthermore, we need to ensure a stable human population thereafter, possibly by ceasing our tendency to create surplus food... or so Daniel Quinn would claim.



The next most important step is to dramatically cut consumption, particularly for the more affluent members of our species. Recycling means little if consumption continues to rise, since more resources will be needed to provide those additional goods. The same concept applies to energy consumption. Humans currently use more energy annually than our planet's annual solar income. If we are to become sustainable, this cannot continue, especially not at the cost of using non-renewable fuels.



Other steps include:

1) The complete retooling or elimination of processes and goods that create toxic wastes

2) Intense recycling & reuse efforts

3) Use only renewable resources, and do so in a sustainable fashion. For example, cease clear-cutting entire forests and replacing them with tree farms, which only reduce biodiversity and critically weaken the ecosystem. Instead, selectively cut trees in natural forests such that the forest and its ecosystem do not decline.

4) Trying to keep resources (and wealth) within a community -- meaning less exports and imports

5) Changes in tax codes and government regulations such that companies are severely penalized for externalizing the harmful effects of their goods and services. (This must go hand-in-hand with income tax cuts and smaller government. -- Read "Ecology of Commerce" for more information.) Since we do not have such a system in place, this is why more sustainable goods/services cost more than wasteful goods/services. Sustainable goods and services must be able to compete in the market place. By preventing the externalizing of costs, human ingenuity can be redirected to solving these social & environmental problems in order to make cheaper, more competitive goods in a capitalist economy. Instead of "growth", our economy could gain value through "development" by reducing the economic burdens on society and the environment.

6) To add to the previous point: In order to decrease the currently externalized costs of the goods, companies should make their goods more modular so that they can be more easily disassembled and recycled. They could also collect their own products at the end of the life cycle and recycle them into new products.



There are many, many steps that could be taken to create a sustainable community, economy, and culture. (Paul Hawken has many great ideas in his books.) But ultimately, the most important first step is for us to find a new vision of our place in this world. From there, we can begin to tackle the more manageable issues and move on to the more challenging issues. And since no individual / organization / community / economy is an island, simply inspiring change in yourself and others will cause the vision to spread. One organization that declares a vision of sustainability (with a specific goal for that achievement) will have no choice but to work with their suppliers and customers to achieve that goal. Those suppliers and customers, if they become inspired to join the journey towards sustainability, will then be required to inspire their suppliers and customers to join them in order to achieve their new vision.



Sustainability is the ultimate vision of teamwork. As Ray Anderson puts it, "that mountain is higher than Everest," but it is a journey our culture must make if we are to survive. All living things in nature, except for humans, survive in a sustainable fashion. Our unsustainable lifestyle has brought our entire biosphere to the verge of collapse in a mere 10,000 years -- an eye-blink of geological time. If everyone who reads this post where to change their vision, accept sustainability, pursue it in the same fashion they pursue every other endeavor in their life, and share that new vision with those around them, then there will be hope for humanity and all other forms of life on this shared planet.
fuschiafish
2006-10-02 21:31:07 UTC
what a stupid question and why should we stop using resources?
Why Does It Do That?
2006-10-03 07:09:22 UTC
you could ask a spam question & it would be marked as fq.

it's not fair. you're gay.
2006-10-08 18:06:11 UTC
Population, transportation, food and water supply, shelter, health care, protection from violence, human interaction and relationships and the protection and regulation of common space; these are the main issues a civilization or community faces no matter what the size or kind.



First and foremost we most recognize we are a community. This involves morals, rules or laws that regard selfishness that puts others needs ahead of your wants as counter productive to everyone’s well being.

It also involves not allowing intolerant/racist/ethnocentric people who do not respect diversity to be able to hurt the community.



Population:

It is hypocritical that we know that too many of one species in an ecosystem will not only destroy that species but possibly the whole ecosystem yet often many think we as humans are excluded.

It is not any one cultures fault. We have the right to replace ourselves and to the joys of family, yet if we decide to have more than two children we should be conscious of the burden it puts on all people no matter how noble those children become. The burden to, or destruction of, our drinkable water, food supply, quality of life, privacy, remaining wild places and forest. Not to mention the sacrifices that need to be made on our communities and common space to accommodate extra humans in a world that is taxed with this burden already.

We can no longer put common sense and need in front of the wants of the cultures and religions that advocate violence and intolerance. We need to consider all peoples religions and cultures as sacred no matter how small and find a balance within their needs and wants. With exception to any who force others to their ways, protecting their potential victims from harm if they call for sanctuary.



For example, in a capitalist system we could tax a progressively higher percentage to those who have more than two children (not including “natural” multiple births) rewarding with breaks those who adopt. The money could go to efforts to feed the hungry, for sustainable housing, libraries, free mass transit and repairing damage done to the earth in the name of “progress” which all too often seems to mean “the things we do, we know we shouldn’t because of over population.” We have the right to as many children as we want, not the right to stick our world and communities with the burden.



Transportation:

The automobile limits the mobility of the elderly, the poor, most of the disabled, and people trying to be good members of their communities by activities such as bicycling and walking. It limits safe places for those same people as well as our children who can not play outside in most places for fear of being hit by a car. It is a dangerous mode of transportation killing and maiming people at random. Its fuel is the cause of war, dirty air and ground water, polluted oceans and countless cancers. It smells bad and is noisy. Autos require more land for parking lots and roads over things like farmland than should be allowed by any sane community. If it was anything else we would have made it illegal.

Instead I propose appropriate regional solutions such as trains, free mass transit, turn old roads into bike/walking/30 mile an hour and emergency/small/medium transport lanes.

Main roads should be converted to rails that if needed could ferry small cars, and these should use ideas like solar, cable, magnet/train and biodiesel. Emergency should be specialized and regional i.e. helicopters. There should be car free zones in every community.

People’s migration should not be hindered. No borders. This works best if we eliminate/change property ownership and the economic system as we know it.



Food and Water:

Food should be raised in a way that does not sacrifice any air, people, ground water or any other common resource such as wild lands. It should be able to improve yield indefinitely and should respect local ecosystems and allow a living for farmers that is sane and realistic. Farms should provide livelihood for many families not just a few. Every farmer should have some land devoted to a community food bank.

Drinking water should be used only for drinking. Things like human waste must not be disposed of into drinking water. This requires unsustainable use of chemicals and wastes a finite resource in terms of time and energy needed to replenish. Composting toilets are just one good alternative. Showers and agriculture should use reclaimed water and should return to the ground water system via grey-water.

The whole planet relies on that water; it is insane to waste it.



Also un-dam most rivers, and allow no one to own water anywhere. If a place where people live has no water, no other place should be ruined to bring it there unless temporary for humanitarian efforts until those people can be relocated in an area that sustains life at no ones expense.



Shelter:

Regional sustainable non toxic materials appropriate to climate. Build houses with art, pride and to needs. Smaller homes for the growing population in urban areas of single people, childless couples and small families. Honor human traditions in the area.



No one should have to live with others and without outside space unless they choose to. Nomadic living should be respected and made allowance for.

Overpopulation once again will have to manage to allow people to all live with dignity. Real estate and property ownership must be changed or abolished all together. We must end the trend of only the wealthy living in the desirable places often ironically made that way by people who cannot afford to live there. Commuting should be discouraged as we move to local regionalized economies. We would also end the trend that makes having a home increasingly impossible for each generation.



Labor/Service:

I include this only to mention it as a way to meet the above needs. If we heal the planet and control population we would not need labor as industrial culture knows it. As we address the other issues we see labor evolve as regional and sustainable. No one should “work” more than 4-6 hours, and no work needs to be done that is harmful to the planet. We need to change how we view work. It is not noble by itself. We must all contribute or be harmless and meet our own needs at no ones expense. With knowledge and real “work” (the kind that benefits humanity and the planet), we can create communities that interact, trade and share labor and services fairly without cheating anyone.

This would make being wealthy as we know it a moral and legal burden on the community that would be dealt with appropriately. Perhaps ownership would be replaced by three other words/definitions. “What I am physically using presently” “What I am sentimental about” and “What I created from other things”. These definitions would of course become specialized and each would imply different needs and rights.



We have to change our harmful and outdated ideas about labor as well as honor our ideas that have worked in the past. Love of ones work, education for learning’s sake and fun should be considered. A healthy community would need to tell a different story about humanities future and the future of work, than the one we are telling.



Health care should be “free” and preventative. I believe in a diversity of economic systems so when I say free I mean equal access to, however the economic system whether communism, capitalism, primitive etc can work it.



Violence:

By Violence I mean anything that harms a human being by keeping them from meeting basic needs or harms them physically(against their consent).

Other than that we get into cultural/religious morality on right and wrong, which I believe should be dealt with case by case. We need to learn to honor that which is sacred to others, which sometimes conflict and overlap, but not allow the above kinds of violence under any circumstance. This is huge and takes more than I know or have time to explain my own wisdom on.



Human interaction and relationships:

We should learn about each others views and cultures and teach that everyone is equally important and good in their own way. We should cultivate joy, love, and learning, if not for that, what is all this survival for?



Protection and regulation of common space:

We share the planet with other humans and living things that need it every bit as much as we do. Our main goal as a community is to respect everyone’s gifts and to leave what we have better or the same as we found it. We need to respect the planet and the creatures on it as special and irreplaceable.

Violence to the earth hurts many instead of one.



This is only one person’s wisdom. For some things to work, others must be realized. This issue connects to just about everything. We should start now by coming together and sharing our knowledge in our small and larger communities.

Imagine what we could accomplish together.


This content was originally posted on Y! Answers, a Q&A website that shut down in 2021.
Loading...