Sustainability “to ensure that [humanity] meets the needs of the

present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs” [Brundtland]

“to meet human needs, while preserving the earth’s life support systems and reducing hunger and poverty” [World Academies of Science, Tokyo]

‘‘meet the needs of a much larger but stabilizing human population, sustain the life support systems of the planet, and . . . substantially reduce hunger and poverty’’ [National Research Council]

“Many people have benefited over the last century from the conversion of natural ecosystems to human-dominated ecosystems and from the exploitation of biodiversity ...”

“…At the same time, however, these gains have been achieved at growing costs in the form of losses in biodiversity, degradation of many ecosystem services, and the exacerbation of poverty for other groups of people.” (UN, Millennium Assessment, 2005)

Environmental?• 200 year drought• Climate change• Exceeding carrying capacity• Disease

Societal?• Overpopulation (see above)• Foreign Invasion• Peasant revolt• Collapse of trade

Cahokia mound builders Settled around 600 their population is thought to have peaked around 40,000.

However, by 1300 the Cahokia population began to decline and was abandoned more than a century before Europeans arrived in North America (16th century), the area around it was largely uninhabited. Scholars have proposed environmental factors, such as over-hunting and deforestation as explanations.

• Global or regional climate change (Little Ice Age),• Prolonged periods of drought, Periods of topsoil erosion,• Environmental degradation (e.g. deforestation), • Conflict

Cliff Palace, Mesa Verde National Park

“Ecocide”? The processes through which past societies have undermined

themselves by damaging their environments fall into 8 categories, whose relative importance differs from case to case: deforestation and habitat destruction, soil problems, water management problems, overhunting, overfishing, effects of introduced species on native species, human population growth, and increased per-capita impact of people.

The Living Planet Report 2008, authored by the WWF, one of the worlds largest and most experienced independent conservation organizations, describes what this means.

that humans are using 30% more resources than the earth can replenish each year populations and consumption keep growing faster than technology finds new ways of

expanding what can be produced from the natural world when human demands on the planet’s capacity exceed what is available, we erode the health

of the Earth’s living systems which loss threatens human well-being 50 countries are already experiencing “moderate to severe water stress on a year-round

basis” global biodiversity has declined by nearly a third since 1970 over the same period (38 years) the ecological footprint of the human population has nearly

doubled and at that rate humans would need two planets to provide for their wants in the 2030s –

which is only 20 plus years from now. This figure does not include the risk of a sudden shock or “feedback loop” such as an acceleration of climate change.

So who’s controlling here? The annual meeting of the World Economic Forum was held a few years ago in Davos, Switzerland and the theme was “Shaping the Post-Crisis World.” 170 business leaders attended, among them 5 woman

delegates. And there were other women there, too – skiing wives and upscale usherettes to show the Big Machers to their seats. Ruth Sunderland, columnist of The Observer commented on this situation (1 February 2009).

"The idea that this can be achieved [she’s referring to “Shaping the Post-Crisis World”] while excluding half the population is breathtaking in its arrogance and shows that the male Davos elite remains mired in its own preening self-regard and complacency. They have wrecked the world economy, but seem oblivious to the idea that they may not be the best people to rebuild it."

Sunderland commented further: “Women are the single biggest – and least acknowledged –

force for economic growth on the planet. This is not a claim made by rampant feminists, but by the Economist, which suggests that over the past few decades women have contributed more to the expansion of the world economy than either new technology or the emerging markets of China and India."

But beware of the “force for economic growth” that Sunderland mentions – which in the here and now means bigger and better consumption. The planet’s 6.9 billion people are in a near-death experience and if we think the solution is more of anything... then we have indeed achieved equality. In delusion.

Data is given as global hectares per capita. The world-average ecological footprint in 2007 was 2.7 global hectares per person.1.UAE – 10.682.Qatar – 10.513.Bahrain – 10.044.Denmark – 8.265.Belgium – 8.006.USA – 8.00

Center for Sustainable Economy

Global Footprint Network

Readings

Leiserowitz et al. (2005). Do global attitudes and behaviors support sustainable development?