Why is the first world citizens' extravagant use of the world's resources

[raccoon]

never discussed?

Nobody, even here on DU wants to hear about it.

It's easier to say, the population problem is caused by third world citizens' having too
many children.

Of course, it has nothing to do with first world citizens' carbon footprints.

[SheilaT]

1. Maybe it's not discussed a lot here,

but I've been reading about that since the 1950's.

[TreasonousBastard]

2. Too busy enjoying low gas prices while driving to the mall...

getting more stuff they don't need.

Gas prices go up and there's always Amazon.

[bhikkhu]

3. Because the answer is we should live with less

Poverty isn't the problem - poor people have relatively small impacts on resource use. Wealth isn't the problem - there simply aren't that many wealthy people (the "1%&quot . Its the middle class consumer lifestyle, the "American Dream" here, which drives the bulk of the problem; not easily engaged for criticism.

[TBF]

4. You would have us believe

That all the industry polluting this earth - which is owned by the 1% - is not a factor? I'll give up my lifestyle and downsize as soon as David Koch agrees to the same conditions.

[NewDeal_Dem]

6. Also -- the political/business deals to create the freeway/auto system/industry, the MIC and

all its attendant waste and pollution, the deliberate decisions by so many business owners to dump pollution on the public because they make more profit that way, etc ad infinitum.

And the lavish and resource using lifestyles of the very rich, involving multiple large residences, private jets and lots of air travel, higher birthrates, etc.

Ordinary people use way less resources than the rich. Even ordinary americans.

But the media is always putting all the blame on ordinary citizens, just as they like to pretend that slavery was created by ordinary americans and ordinary americans benefited from it to some large degree, when it was created by the rich, who were its main beneficiaries, and continue to benefit into the present day.

[bhikkhu]

10. Industry serves consumers

which are most all of us. It doesn't matter who owns what, as far as that goes, as resources used in production are the issue. Lacking customers, production would stop pretty quickly. Not to really argue or get on a high horse, but nobody should look to David Koch for leadership as to how to live.

[TBF]

17. "It doesn't matter who owns what" -

this right here is where we differ 100%.

I am looking to use resources for the benefit of ALL on this planet, and hoarding of the resources by the top 1% in order to further their profits is not only literally killing us (as they destroy the planet with the effects of global warming) but also is just a piss poor system for most of us on a daily basis.

[jwirr]

7. That is interesting. I some of our smaller communities you can drive down the street and see the

evolution of housing. You find houses built right after the great depression and they are small. What we now call beginner houses. (The even older one room shacks are now gone.) Then you begin to see larger and larger houses as they get newer. What seems interesting to me is that those small houses (and one room shacks) held large families. As the houses got bigger the sizes in families decreased. We were taught that we needed these big houses so every child could have their own bedroom and a whole bunch of other reasons. The American Dream.

I

[bhikkhu]

11. I know what you mean - even in my own lifespan

I grew up with three siblings, raised by my single mom, and my grandparents, and their youngest daughter, all in the same small house. I never thought of it as crowded at the time, but it had three little bedrooms and a converted garage, for 8 people total. At one time another aunt was having family trouble and her kids, four more cousins, came to live with us for a summer...I just remember how much we enjoyed playing together.

Now I raise two daughters in a decent-sized 3 bedroom house, and it just seems so crowded, not enough room for anything! When my family comes to visit from out of town they just get a hotel room.

[jwirr]

13. You know I think that the bigger the house gets the more things we try to stuff into it. Every house

I know has more things - many of them unneeded - and so little room. There is something to the idea of living simple. Even in my little room I am forever trying to find room for just one more thing.

[Adrahil]

14. Sorry, I don't buy the narrative...

... That we must simply learn to be content with less. I believe green solutions are possible without trying stuff every family of 4 into 1000 sq ft.

[raccoon]

15. Please consider starting a thread about this. Many people don't seem to realize this.

I am 60+ and it has been my observation too.

[AndyTiedye]

8. Even That is Not as Simple as it Sounds

Give up the house and the car and move into the city?
A lot of people are already doing that, and pushing long-term residents out.
Gentrification.

Our "consumer" goods are aptly named, many of them consume themselves shortly after the 90-day warrantee runs out.
Shiny metal outside, cheap plastic inside.
So much of what we buy is replacements for stuff that broke or wore out. Very little stuff is repairable anymore.

Our public transportation is a joke, with rare exceptions. In the few places with good transit, people use it a lot.
The places that have good transit have become more popular, and are of course gentrifying fastest.

[NewDeal_Dem]

5. Why is it that the rich and superrich use waaay more of the earth's resources, and way more

extravagantly; also have more kids than ordinary people; yet no one wants to talk about it even less?

Could it be because blaming the general public (who live within the frame created by the rich and powerful) is easier for creating FUD?


Average Americans are certainly having fewer kids these days — in 2009, the birthrate in the U.S. hit its lowest point in a century — probably in large part because of the tenuous economic times. If you’re out of a job or underemployed or even simply worried about your economic future, you might think twice before having a(nother) child, considering that it can cost well north of $200,000 to raise a kid just until the age of 18.

But the recession doesn’t seem to be hurting those hedge-fund managers, so the super-rich might still be procreating at a higher rate than the rest of us. Hell, they might even be having an easier time hiring their armies of nannies because the job market is so tight.

The average American slurps up more resources than almost everyone else on the planet, and the mega-rich blow the average American out of the water in terms of consumption and environmental impact — collecting all the latest fashions and gadgets, flying by private jet to Jackson Hole and St. Barts, sprawling out into multiple massive homes.


http://grist.org/population/2011-03-03-are-rich-americans-having-more-kids/

[Taitertots]

9. Because "Less for Everyone!" Doesn't satisfy corporate sponsors or win elections

And no one on DU wants to mention it because a significant portion of DU posters are global income/wealth 1%ers. The discussion inevitably becomes "whose consumption will be limited/prohibited?".

[TBF]

19. Less for everyone works for me IF

the 1% is included. The person who started this idea upthread says that they "it doesn't matter who owns what" which is a clever way to turn this into a republican talking point - everyone has too much & should live with less. Except THEM of course. Same thing as the Phyllis Schlafly arguments of the 70s - all the women should be barefoot and pregnant in their homes - as she jets around the country giving her speeches.

I am all for living smaller, recycling, off the grid, resources used to benefit everyone -- BUT this must come with the caveat that the rich are not allowed to opt out.

[Warren DeMontague]

12. Because 1st world resource utilization is not the same thing as the "population problem"

It's facile to think that, for instance, all the 1st world people will just go away. Most 1st world countries are already responsibly managing their birth rates, on their own.

The challenge for the 1st world is to find sustainable ways to power our civilization, but that is a different question.

So here's one for you: statistically, the growth experienced in US population right now is largely from immigration. This isn't xenophobia, just simple statistical fact. And every time someone comes into the US from Mexico, or Guatemala, or Honduras, etc to improve their standard of living- which is for sure the prime motivation- ostensibly you have a 3rd world level resource-consumer being turned into a 1st world level one.

So ... isn't that part of the equation? Or is it just about telling people not to have kids?

[pampango]

16. When you ask 'me/us' to sacrifice you have some explaining to do. When you ask "them" to sacrifice

I can accept that.

Pointing out that the average American creates 3 times the carbon emissions that the average Chinese produces, leads down the "wrong" path.

[One_Life_To_Give]

18. Being the first to charge a machine gun nest

With a collective problem such as this. There is a reluctance upon individuals to make the individual sacrifice without some sense that everyone else will also make their sacrifice at the same time. Essentially we don't want to find ourselves like some lone soldier caught out of the trenches in WW1 wondering why they are advancing while everyone else remains in the trench. We need to convince ourselves that we all are going to go out all at once.

[Recursion]

20. Well, apparently mentioning that is part of some big TPP plot, or something like that (nt)