Do you think that a persons wealth is directly proportionate to their resource use, and environmental impact?
joecool123_us asked:
Not income, but wealth. Do the people who own the factories and own the land, who then chose what happens to the land (suburban sprawl) have a proportionate impact on natural resource use to the percentage of wealth that they hold?
Wealth
Not income, but wealth. Do the people who own the factories and own the land, who then chose what happens to the land (suburban sprawl) have a proportionate impact on natural resource use to the percentage of wealth that they hold?
Wealth
Caffeinated Content - Members-Only Content for WordPress
This is an interesting question. There’s also a problem, since my husband and I define wealth in a totally different way than most people.
“The real measure of your wealth is how much you’d be worth if you lost all your money.” Anon
“He is richest who is content with the least, for content is the wealth of nature.” Socrates
“All true wealth is biological.”
The above are three quotes we firmly believe in. My husband and I have no money to begin with. Very few people have real money. Money is not that paper stuff put out by the Governement. It has no real value. Real money is made from gold or silver. But even if the playing field were leveled, and all the play money our Governments pass out was taken away, my husband and I would have gret biological wealth. In the end, biological wealth truely is the ONLY wealth.
If some worldwide disaster were to befall the planet, would the people with money still be able to run to the store and buy food, even if they had gold and silver money? Or would the food have now become more valuable than gold? Would people who lived on farms and owned actual biological wealth in the form of crops, and livestock suddenly become the wealthiest people on earth? If you can provide food for yourself, and your family, you are wealthy indeed (and I do not mean from a grocery store shelf).
So taking my famlies personal beliefs, then no, our wealth is not proportionate to our use of resources and our impact on the environment. We produce food, for ourselves, and for our customers. We own land and livestock. We farm with permiculture, as it is in our best interests to care for the land and keep it as healthy as possible, so it will continue to feed us, and our animals. We produce almost nothing in the way of trash. Our biological wealth, though not huge, is enough to support us, and others.
But lets look at the question, the way you intended. I would say the wealthy, and the mega wealthy use more than their fair share of resources. I hate to say it though, this has always been the way of things. Even if you look at chip societies, the strong take and use more than the weak. The males hunt and kill, and eat more meat. The top females get a better cut of the feeding grounds, more termites, more fruits and vegtables.
Humans are the same. The strong, and wealthy consume more, and the weaker, poorer make due with less. Take Jay Leno, the commedian/host of the Tonight show. How many cars and motorcycles does one guy need to own? Surely he has more than enough! His consumption of resources is huge. On the other hand, how many jobs is he providing by buying up, and restoring so many vintage automobiles?
Bill Gates, richest guy in the world. He is highly responsible for the destruction of beautiful Western Washington as far as I’m concerned. Microsoft created more millionares than any other company before. The company is located in Western Washington. People bought up tracts of land, and built multitudes of houses. They demanded places to shop and eat, so more malls, more resteraunts, and even more houses for the workers to live in. It all trickled down, and has made a once gorgeous state a rather unplesant place to live.
Yet how many people are employed and fed, thanks to Microsoft? How far reaching is that trickle down? Now that Bill Gates is retiring, he and his wife have decided to spend most of their wealth helping out Africa. How many people will benifit from that? The Gates will still control and be able to direct the movement of huge amounts of resources, yet it will be happening in a totally different way than before.
People who control the factories, and the land have a very deep inmapct, usually negative, on the earth, and her resources. Of course my question would then be, if you do not like the status quo, who do YOU work for, and who feeds you?
~Garnet
Homesteading/Farming over 20 years
P.S. We really do believe the only form of wealth is biological, which is why companies like Monsanto, Cargil, and ConAgra who are putting pattening seeds and putting terminator genes in them scare the ever living crap out of us….but that’s for a different question.
Wealth
Yes, I agree that resource use may be directly proportionate to land/production ownership and to environmental impact.
We have to also consider these inputs in relation to people’s quality of life and meeting global needs for basic resources such as drinking water, clean air, food, a livelihood etc.
Similarly we have to consider output and positive environmental impact. Sustainability is when input equals or is more than output so that the natural ecosystem is maintained or enriched not depleted.
Land ownership/means of production may have a positive or negative impact on usage of natural resources and the natural environment but it is always a transient influence in real terms. Without man, the land would re-balance and heal itself. It would adjust and function without us being in the eco-system.
Our concerns should be recognized as not really being about the environment but about humanity; how we and our children will survive our own overconsumption and lifestyles.
Wealth
Hmmm, let me see … Randy Bachman, member of the bands BTO and the Guess Who, has built a tamped earth house which is very environmentally friendly, efficient and economical. Some of the richest people in the world are donating large portions of their personal wealth to mitigating the effects of GW.
The amount you consume and the environmental damage you do is an active personal choice not dependent on your fiscal resources. The only thing money gives you is more choices.
Caffeinated Content
yes we should hold up a discussion an d then proceed for further requiremets
Caffeinated Content - Members-Only Content for WordPress
Fore many people money does talk, but I believe that at some point attitudes will change and that we can save this world.
I have lots of info that I think you will find quite helpful and enlightening:
for excellent inspirational info within my blog to help not only our world and its creatures, but to also open peoples hearts and minds to many amazing wonders that life has to offer. I also have lots of info in my blog to help fuel peoples imaginations to many possibilities that can be found only in the minds eye.
Along with lots of environmental info, amazing environmental pictures and videos (These videos show the beauty of this world and what life can be like if people take the time to appreciate life’s true beauty).
Let us all strive for a greener/brighter future by helping to create a solid foundation for future generations to build upon, so we can hand them a beautiful world, filled with never ending awe and wonders!!
Where peoples differences and uniqueness are accepted, where we all live as one, helping one another so that we can all play our own mysteriously beautiful melodies in the never ending, awe inspiring, song of life
I truly have faith in humanity and believe that someday our lives and the world in which we live will truly be transformed for the better.