<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Are cities sustainable?</title>
	<atom:link href="http://rexweyler.com/2009/09/14/are-cities-sustainable/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://rexweyler.com/2009/09/14/are-cities-sustainable/</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sun, 11 Jul 2010 09:46:53 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: emily</title>
		<link>http://rexweyler.com/2009/09/14/are-cities-sustainable/comment-page-1/#comment-33513</link>
		<dc:creator>emily</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 11 Jul 2010 09:46:53 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://rexweyler.com/2009/09/14/are-cities-sustainable/#comment-33513</guid>
		<description>My recollection of Dubai is that it&#039;s the least sustainable city in the known universe!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>My recollection of Dubai is that it&#8217;s the least sustainable city in the known universe!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Avi</title>
		<link>http://rexweyler.com/2009/09/14/are-cities-sustainable/comment-page-1/#comment-20159</link>
		<dc:creator>Avi</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 05 Oct 2009 10:39:38 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://rexweyler.com/2009/09/14/are-cities-sustainable/#comment-20159</guid>
		<description>Well, hope springs eternal. Sometimes I feel that perhaps it&#039;s time we&#039;re naturally deselected as an evolutionary mistake. On the other hand perhaps something big is around the corner, that will drastically change the currently accepted paradigms.

Either way, I surrender completely to the infinite. Doing what I feel is right (and constantly inspired by legends like you).</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Well, hope springs eternal. Sometimes I feel that perhaps it&#8217;s time we&#8217;re naturally deselected as an evolutionary mistake. On the other hand perhaps something big is around the corner, that will drastically change the currently accepted paradigms.</p>
<p>Either way, I surrender completely to the infinite. Doing what I feel is right (and constantly inspired by legends like you).</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Avi</title>
		<link>http://rexweyler.com/2009/09/14/are-cities-sustainable/comment-page-1/#comment-20058</link>
		<dc:creator>Avi</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 01 Oct 2009 05:24:27 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://rexweyler.com/2009/09/14/are-cities-sustainable/#comment-20058</guid>
		<description>We&#039;ve had over 2000-3000 years of evolution of a system that has led us to the current state that we&#039;re in. How do we change our collective lifestyles to live in small self-sufficient communities?

It seems like things have spun too far away from the mystic truths of nature.


&lt;strong&gt;Rex Weyler&lt;/strong&gt;: It helps me to remember that we had several million years of sustainable hunting, gathering, and living in communities in which people took care of each other. Those instincts remain with us. </description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>We&#8217;ve had over 2000-3000 years of evolution of a system that has led us to the current state that we&#8217;re in. How do we change our collective lifestyles to live in small self-sufficient communities?</p>
<p>It seems like things have spun too far away from the mystic truths of nature.</p>
<p><strong>Rex Weyler</strong>: It helps me to remember that we had several million years of sustainable hunting, gathering, and living in communities in which people took care of each other. Those instincts remain with us.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Andrea Peloso</title>
		<link>http://rexweyler.com/2009/09/14/are-cities-sustainable/comment-page-1/#comment-19855</link>
		<dc:creator>Andrea Peloso</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 23 Sep 2009 14:47:01 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://rexweyler.com/2009/09/14/are-cities-sustainable/#comment-19855</guid>
		<description>Rex,

Thanks for catching my language around the deer and buffalo.  Of course, I realize that the buffalo have already been decimated.  But, what I increasingly realize is that no animal species is thriving because of the massive human population at this level of consumption.  As David Suzuki says, there are more humans on this earth than there are rabbits and rats.  (http://www.howtoboilafrog.com/, scroll down and click on David Suzuki&#039;s image)

Every time I see even a squirrel or an animal killed on the side of the road from cars now it has a different meaning for me now.  What remains in the animal world are often forced to cross our car paths - most people are likely more accustomed to seeing road kill than any other kind of living animal.  I am not making a statistical point here, but rather, that it is common to assume that animals come from somewhere (where?) and exist in greater numbers than us.  There is something heartbreaking to me about how our culture just shrugs off the car as a necessity and literally forces every animal that is near a road (so, likely most animals) to cross at their own peril.  It happens daily without even the blink of an eye.

On a different note, humans cannot possibly imagine the historic fecundity of the natural world prior to our massive take over.  A particularly telling example for me is of the Wadden Sea which runs across the Northern Edge of Europe. &quot;Up to 1000 years ago it was a fabulous, interconnected system that was home to grey and white whales, porpoises, dolphins, seals, astounding three-dimensional oyster beds, eagles, pelicans, flamingos, egrets, herons, and other huge birds.  Massive cod, haddock, halibut and rays temed in its waters, while metres-long salmon and sturgeon swam from river to sea...As rich as the Wadden seems now, it was once almost unimaginably richer.&quot; (Alanna Mitchell, Sea Sick) 

What passes for diverse ecosystems now are merely remnants of the past.

Thanks for the reminder, and it is further inspiration to act - to trace new paths where all can walk or swim.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Rex,</p>
<p>Thanks for catching my language around the deer and buffalo.  Of course, I realize that the buffalo have already been decimated.  But, what I increasingly realize is that no animal species is thriving because of the massive human population at this level of consumption.  As David Suzuki says, there are more humans on this earth than there are rabbits and rats.  (<a href="http://www.howtoboilafrog.com/" rel="nofollow">http://www.howtoboilafrog.com/</a>, scroll down and click on David Suzuki&#8217;s image)</p>
<p>Every time I see even a squirrel or an animal killed on the side of the road from cars now it has a different meaning for me now.  What remains in the animal world are often forced to cross our car paths &#8211; most people are likely more accustomed to seeing road kill than any other kind of living animal.  I am not making a statistical point here, but rather, that it is common to assume that animals come from somewhere (where?) and exist in greater numbers than us.  There is something heartbreaking to me about how our culture just shrugs off the car as a necessity and literally forces every animal that is near a road (so, likely most animals) to cross at their own peril.  It happens daily without even the blink of an eye.</p>
<p>On a different note, humans cannot possibly imagine the historic fecundity of the natural world prior to our massive take over.  A particularly telling example for me is of the Wadden Sea which runs across the Northern Edge of Europe. &#8220;Up to 1000 years ago it was a fabulous, interconnected system that was home to grey and white whales, porpoises, dolphins, seals, astounding three-dimensional oyster beds, eagles, pelicans, flamingos, egrets, herons, and other huge birds.  Massive cod, haddock, halibut and rays temed in its waters, while metres-long salmon and sturgeon swam from river to sea&#8230;As rich as the Wadden seems now, it was once almost unimaginably richer.&#8221; (Alanna Mitchell, Sea Sick) </p>
<p>What passes for diverse ecosystems now are merely remnants of the past.</p>
<p>Thanks for the reminder, and it is further inspiration to act &#8211; to trace new paths where all can walk or swim.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Andrea Peloso</title>
		<link>http://rexweyler.com/2009/09/14/are-cities-sustainable/comment-page-1/#comment-19717</link>
		<dc:creator>Andrea Peloso</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 18 Sep 2009 00:50:08 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://rexweyler.com/2009/09/14/are-cities-sustainable/#comment-19717</guid>
		<description>Rex,

Thanks for this clarifying picture of the debt that cities have to the earth.  It further calls us to change our habits, instead of desperately searching for nonexistent resources to prop up our current pattern of life.

Here&#039;s an example of the current ludicrous attempts at solutions:  &quot;For Italy to meet the EU requirements to have 5% of it&#039;s gas and diesel be biofuel by 2010 will require 69% more land to be farmed than is available in the entire country and require 102% more water and 40% more chemicals.  The UK has set targets of 2.5% of fuel to be biofuel by 2008, rising to 5% by 2010.    Compulsory biofuels are a recipe for disaster.  It is a case of the cure being worse than the disease.&quot; (Vandana Shiva, Soil not OIl)  

Our entire conception of life subverts daily bread to speed.  There is no justice in a solution that requires the land that some need to eat for a temporary quick fix leading no-where.

On a more personal note, I have been living with second hand clothes almost entirely for 2 years now.  From the amount of second hand clothes that friends share I am not even making a sacrifice.  We have so much stuff here in Canada that we have no idea how easy it is to begin to live with less. All we have to do is begin.

Finally, though hunting and gathering was sustainable at some point in history, is it remotely sustainable now?  I assume that our population has grown too far and would decimate species such as deer and buffalo.

Thanks again Rex,
Andrea

&lt;strong&gt;Rex Weyler&lt;/strong&gt;: Correct, 7 billion fire-wielding, pleasure-seeking primates grazing the planet for food and fun are not sustainable, now or ever, but let&#039;s put this in perspective: we&#039;ve already decimated the deer and buffalo. 

All that&#039;s left are the remnants. I&#039;ve lived in places where the deer appear to be plentiful, garden-wrecking pests, but even this is a delusion. We&#039;ve so vastly destroyed the world&#039;s forests and wilderness habitats, including the oceans, that we&#039;ve reduced all major species -- except our domesticated slave and food animals, cows, pigs, chickens, etc. -- to mere remnant herds and isolated clusters. The marine mammals that survive exist at about 1-10% of their peak numbers prior to the 17th century. So yes, without massive agriculture, 7 billion + humans are not remotely sustainable. However, with massive industrial agriculture, we continue to erode the natural ecosystem support for all of life, so we are only making the problem worse, daily. And keep in mind, over a billion people live in chronic hunger, and 24,000 of them starve to death every day. A thousand humans per hour dropping dead from starvation, so we are already suffering the consequences of overshoot. 

The techno-junkie growth advocates tell us there is plenty of food and that it&#039;s just a &quot;distribution&quot; problem. Yes, I suppose you could say so: 2% of humanity gets about 50% of everything, but it&#039;s not a &quot;distribution&quot; problem, it&#039;s a fundamental &quot;system&quot; problem: We&#039;ve built an economic system on a biophysical impossibility: endless growth; and on the most shameful and destructive of human instincts, namely: greed. Build a system on private greed and endless growth and bingo: you can overshoot a planet in a few centuries. We are Easter Island writ large. But the status quo, the bankers, corporate whiz-kids, and their hired henchmen, have no idea how to change, so they are trying to sell more &#039;&#039;green&quot; junk and &quot;sustainable&quot; resort holidays. This is why we still desperately need ecologists, biophysical economists, and all the modest people with common sense to remind the herd of humanity that it has already reached the cliff, that half of humanity is already falling off the edge, and no amount of Priuses or hemp fashions are going to reverse the mad stampede. 

Here is what will reverse overshoot: use less stuff. 

Folks: please see Andrea&#039;s Living Without a Fridge website -- http://ditchyourfridge.blogspot.com/ -- for inspiration about living with less. Andrea is an authentic pioneer of the real sustainable future. 

rw. 

</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Rex,</p>
<p>Thanks for this clarifying picture of the debt that cities have to the earth.  It further calls us to change our habits, instead of desperately searching for nonexistent resources to prop up our current pattern of life.</p>
<p>Here&#8217;s an example of the current ludicrous attempts at solutions:  &#8220;For Italy to meet the EU requirements to have 5% of it&#8217;s gas and diesel be biofuel by 2010 will require 69% more land to be farmed than is available in the entire country and require 102% more water and 40% more chemicals.  The UK has set targets of 2.5% of fuel to be biofuel by 2008, rising to 5% by 2010.    Compulsory biofuels are a recipe for disaster.  It is a case of the cure being worse than the disease.&#8221; (Vandana Shiva, Soil not OIl)  </p>
<p>Our entire conception of life subverts daily bread to speed.  There is no justice in a solution that requires the land that some need to eat for a temporary quick fix leading no-where.</p>
<p>On a more personal note, I have been living with second hand clothes almost entirely for 2 years now.  From the amount of second hand clothes that friends share I am not even making a sacrifice.  We have so much stuff here in Canada that we have no idea how easy it is to begin to live with less. All we have to do is begin.</p>
<p>Finally, though hunting and gathering was sustainable at some point in history, is it remotely sustainable now?  I assume that our population has grown too far and would decimate species such as deer and buffalo.</p>
<p>Thanks again Rex,<br />
Andrea</p>
<p><strong>Rex Weyler</strong>: Correct, 7 billion fire-wielding, pleasure-seeking primates grazing the planet for food and fun are not sustainable, now or ever, but let&#8217;s put this in perspective: we&#8217;ve already decimated the deer and buffalo. </p>
<p>All that&#8217;s left are the remnants. I&#8217;ve lived in places where the deer appear to be plentiful, garden-wrecking pests, but even this is a delusion. We&#8217;ve so vastly destroyed the world&#8217;s forests and wilderness habitats, including the oceans, that we&#8217;ve reduced all major species &#8212; except our domesticated slave and food animals, cows, pigs, chickens, etc. &#8212; to mere remnant herds and isolated clusters. The marine mammals that survive exist at about 1-10% of their peak numbers prior to the 17th century. So yes, without massive agriculture, 7 billion + humans are not remotely sustainable. However, with massive industrial agriculture, we continue to erode the natural ecosystem support for all of life, so we are only making the problem worse, daily. And keep in mind, over a billion people live in chronic hunger, and 24,000 of them starve to death every day. A thousand humans per hour dropping dead from starvation, so we are already suffering the consequences of overshoot. </p>
<p>The techno-junkie growth advocates tell us there is plenty of food and that it&#8217;s just a &#8220;distribution&#8221; problem. Yes, I suppose you could say so: 2% of humanity gets about 50% of everything, but it&#8217;s not a &#8220;distribution&#8221; problem, it&#8217;s a fundamental &#8220;system&#8221; problem: We&#8217;ve built an economic system on a biophysical impossibility: endless growth; and on the most shameful and destructive of human instincts, namely: greed. Build a system on private greed and endless growth and bingo: you can overshoot a planet in a few centuries. We are Easter Island writ large. But the status quo, the bankers, corporate whiz-kids, and their hired henchmen, have no idea how to change, so they are trying to sell more &#8221;green&#8221; junk and &#8220;sustainable&#8221; resort holidays. This is why we still desperately need ecologists, biophysical economists, and all the modest people with common sense to remind the herd of humanity that it has already reached the cliff, that half of humanity is already falling off the edge, and no amount of Priuses or hemp fashions are going to reverse the mad stampede. </p>
<p>Here is what will reverse overshoot: use less stuff. </p>
<p>Folks: please see Andrea&#8217;s Living Without a Fridge website &#8212; <a href="http://ditchyourfridge.blogspot.com/" rel="nofollow">http://ditchyourfridge.blogspot.com/</a> &#8212; for inspiration about living with less. Andrea is an authentic pioneer of the real sustainable future. </p>
<p>rw.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
