I was just watching a problem on the dilemma we face today. The leading Australian scientific institution had published a report looking at sustainability on a national level.
Basically, things tie in with:
- growing population
- use of resources
- lifestyle
(all counted not in terms of dollars, but in terms of litre of water)
On one side (the scientists), growing population causes more pollution and more use of resources. Were virtually heading to the edge of the cliff. On the other side (the business and economists) say the market system will balance things out, technology and innovative ideas should not be underestimated, for they will arise to solve the problem.
Economists dont like scientists middling in the affairs of the economy, scientists keep saying that the way were living now is not sustainable while the economists dont take them seriously.
Question:
1. Isnt it ironic in that we rely on science to power our cars, we rely on science to make up some miraculous solutions but when scientists tell us something that we dont like to hear, we dont take them seriously? We keep saying that more research have to be done but years of research would it be too late by then?
2. Business sector holds the key, for they provide the money to do research, yet potential solutions may not be able to keep up with the problems they are causing.
3. Can we rely on the general population to change their lifestyle so that things will get more sustainable? How longs that gonna take? Are people even willing to try? (housing developments)
4. Scientists do not know enough of economics and economists do not know enough of science, each side is dare I say, seriously ignorant to the other side of the argument. Do we have enough time to train up people who know bits of both sides to come with a solution?
5. Politicians can only plan up to the next election, meaning any long-range planning wouldnt be plausible unless both sides agree (why cant the parties agree with each other except the time when terrorism hit? Im talking about Australia)
Conclusion of the program: its a dilemma. Everyone agrees that itll be very complicated to come up with a supermodel that satisfies both sides, right now, no one has come up with a solution. It looks like the prospect of future sounds pretty bleak.
Basically, things tie in with:
- growing population
- use of resources
- lifestyle
(all counted not in terms of dollars, but in terms of litre of water)
On one side (the scientists), growing population causes more pollution and more use of resources. Were virtually heading to the edge of the cliff. On the other side (the business and economists) say the market system will balance things out, technology and innovative ideas should not be underestimated, for they will arise to solve the problem.
Economists dont like scientists middling in the affairs of the economy, scientists keep saying that the way were living now is not sustainable while the economists dont take them seriously.
Question:
1. Isnt it ironic in that we rely on science to power our cars, we rely on science to make up some miraculous solutions but when scientists tell us something that we dont like to hear, we dont take them seriously? We keep saying that more research have to be done but years of research would it be too late by then?
2. Business sector holds the key, for they provide the money to do research, yet potential solutions may not be able to keep up with the problems they are causing.
3. Can we rely on the general population to change their lifestyle so that things will get more sustainable? How longs that gonna take? Are people even willing to try? (housing developments)
4. Scientists do not know enough of economics and economists do not know enough of science, each side is dare I say, seriously ignorant to the other side of the argument. Do we have enough time to train up people who know bits of both sides to come with a solution?
5. Politicians can only plan up to the next election, meaning any long-range planning wouldnt be plausible unless both sides agree (why cant the parties agree with each other except the time when terrorism hit? Im talking about Australia)
Conclusion of the program: its a dilemma. Everyone agrees that itll be very complicated to come up with a supermodel that satisfies both sides, right now, no one has come up with a solution. It looks like the prospect of future sounds pretty bleak.
