= new reply since forum marked as read
Plus, I have a tremendous crush on Naomi Klein
Amen. I wish more people understood that. 
keep this group interesting. If one considers a certain view koolaid, then don't drink the offering. This isn't Jonestown, no armed guards to insure acceptance.
The back and forth is what creates diversity of thought, and later opinion. Evolution does not confine the constant, but rather ensures more diversity.
But don't mind me if my thoughts are too dark my opinions too bleak. After all, rightly I'm just an old nutbag. Cheers, and protect thyself 
Yes, we need a smaller, more stable population. That isn't at odds with the concept of sustainability.
True there is no such thing as a "frictionless economy". That also isn't at odds with a sustainable economy.
And while we will always "degrade the environment", that is because we are an active part of the dynamic matrix of forces that is the environment. To establish a standard where we do not, to some degree "degrade" (or as others might say "alter"
the state of the environment is silly on its face.
The question is, does the admittedly inevitable "resource exploitation" make the world a worse or unfit place for humans to live or does it provide for us a place where the footprint is one that doesn't increase over time. There is no other standard that we can possibly use.
"Growth" in the economic sense that is being criticized erroneously, is nothing more than increased economic activity. Whether that activity is dedicated to improving the world for all its residents or whether it is dedicated to the infinite accumulation of "wealth" (a concept that itself is fluid) is a choice we make as individuals and as cultures.
ETA: If the obvious example of transitioning to renewable energy isn't a clear enough example, here's another. A concerted effort to solve this problem will produce a huge amount of long term economic growth that is beneficial both to us and the planet.
BY KATIE VALENTINE ON SEPTEMBER 11, 2013 AT 5:13 PM
If the amount of food the world wastes was a country, it would be topped only by China and the U.S. in terms of greenhouse gas emissions, according to a new UN report.
The report, published Wednesday by the UN Food and Agriculture Organization, found each year about a third of the food produced for human consumption worldwide — about 1.3 billion metric tons — is wasted, a practice which emits the equivalent of about 3.3 billion metric tons of greenhouse gases. That’s about twice the amount of carbon emitted from the U.S.’s transportation sector and close to twice the yearly emissions of India. That wasted food also wastes water — the report states that about 250 cubic kilometers of ground and surface water is used each year to produce food that is ultimately wasted, an amount about three times the volume of Lake Geneva in Switzerland.
Tackling the problem of food waste isn’t simple — the report notes that food waste is produced differently in different regions of the world. In general, high-income regions waste significantly more food than developing regions, and in those regions, more food is wasted at the consumption level, as a result of people buying too much food and throwing away what they aren’t able to eat. This happens at a much lower rate in low-income regions, where food waste is often caused by inefficient farming practices and the lack of proper equipment and storage areas. The report suggests more investment in sustainable harvesting and storage methods, and also urges businesses in the developed world to donate extra food to charities instead of dumping it in landfills. That suggestion can be harder than it seems to carry out — in the U.S., many charities are often worried about violating health codes in their states or cities by accepting leftover food that isn’t still in its can or package.
Reducing this food waste ...
http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2013/09/11/2604811/food-waste-report/
But waste reduction can only be taken so far. Its as simple as that.
While we may have some room for economic growth in the service of improved living standards, I don't believe there is any evidence that growth can go on indefinitely.
Of course there are ways to measure the quality of the environment outside the human condition (and our bank accounts). Any ecologist could tell you that, and would probably include biodiversity, biomass, and habitat and biome size among his/her metrics. If it is possible to be humane to individual animals and to small groups of them, for instance, then its possible to be humane to a biosphere; the assessment may start with ourselves, but as you implied how we are a part of the web of life, the assessment must radiate outward instead of stopping at a point.
We are related by multidimensional degrees to these other lifeforms that co-evolved with us up to this point, and we need to find it within ourselves to respect them. If not--or worse if they are demoted to a kind of inventory--then we may eventually find ourselves with an eminently "sustainable" system that affords us no more than cyanobacteria, fungus and jellyfish (or whatever their re-engineered counterparts would be in such a pathetic "web"
.
Put it on my "consumer organization" list with Ralph Nader's groups.
I don't want to be a "consumer." Never did.
In this life I want to stay on the trails, take pictures, and leave only footprints.
My calories today courtesy of almonds and a tomato grown in my backyard, local beers, local fruits, grains, and vegetables. And fuck it all, PG&E-Duke Energy for the electrons to post this.
Can't win.
