32, A NUMBER THAT MATTERS

Consumption disparity.

    32 is a number that deserves your attention.  It is a number that in a sense is responsible for the mess our planet is in and it is a number we have to work hard to change.  Don’t know what I’m talking about?  Read this excellent essay by Jared Diamond from today’s New York Times and I hope you’ll agree with me.
    Jared Diamond has written Guns, Germs and Steel, the most important non-fiction book I have ever read and one that I highly recommend to anyone with any interest in the fate of our species.  Professor Diamond’s other book, Collapse, is also a significant contribution to the understanding of this planet’s most disruptive inhabitant.  Together, these two books are sufficient proof for me that it is well worth paying close attention to anything this man says. 
    In his NYT piece, Diamond points out a simple fact:  the per capita consumption of rich nations is 32 times that of the poor nations.  32 times!  Words like disparity or imbalance don’t come close to describing this situation.  This gap must be reduced if we are to avoid catastrophe and Diamond explains how this might be achieved. 
    I have to admit to you that I felt more than a bit guilty this morning as I wheeled our 3 garbage bins to the road.

Joseph Froncioni

Comments

[Andy Froncioni]

Just to clarify my point further...

Jared Diamond neglects the principal cause of why we don't want, say, China to have Western consumption rates.

The current Chinese population is the result of exponential growth that was eventually halted by a strict Maoist solution. Had this not been the case, China would now have 6 billion people all on its own, and the world population would now stand at over 12 billion.

All populations on earth have witnessed exponential growth rates at some point or other. Growth causes environmental stress. Environmental stress causes drastic change (e.g. Easter Island).

The endgame for humanity will involve a race between intelligent population mangement through education, or cataclysmic population reduction through war, disease, or famine.

My prediction is that lowering consumption will not play a significant role in any meaningful solution.

[oliver t griswold]

this is a good 20 minute video speaking to our over-consumption of stuff: www.storyofstuff.org

[Andy Froncioni]

Don't feel so bad, Joe. 32 is a linear constant. What you really need to worry about is exponential growth, like the growth we see from large families.

And I'd suggest that a better number is 70. See here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F-QA2rkpBSY