Wolfgang Sachs on sustainable development vs economic growth

Most of the issue here revolves around Human Growth ... too many people require too much land and resources. If the Greens really want to save the planet we need to reduce the number of people on it, then we can still maintain our current lifestyle.

Nobody wants to talk about this nor address it.

This guy obviously has no clue how the economy nor technology works. He mistakenly assums technology is fixed and that devolving is the only way to fix the environment, if the environment even has any problems.

“The more unequal a society is the less happy people are.†... this quote really applies to Communism and Dictatorships which I'll assume Sachs admires ... not market based systems where individual liberty rule the day.

This guy is a waste, very narrow minded and unable to see beyond his own self imposed blinders.

Ive been reading a lot about sustainable development and green economic growth recently and I must say this lecture is really, really interesting. Thanks for posting it Benno!

Nobody wants to talk about overpopulation because Thomas Malthus was wrong back in the 17th century and his Domesday theory still holds no ground in today's world. Overpopulation is not the problem – overconsumption by the rich few is. Our western lifestyle is unsustainable and we cannot sustain it by enforcing ecofascist laws or actions like the ones you are calling for.

Wow. Calling Wolfgang Sachs clueless really shows how much of a troll you are.

Depends upon how one defines 'Rich' .. I'm guessing ignorant people like you would claim all non-3rd world people are 'Rich'. To claim overpopulation is not the problem, or could not solve the problem denies a mathematical simplicity. If a problem exists.

Call me names, call me a Troll or whatever I don't really care. Sachs cannot see beyond his narrowly defined doctrine, in my humble view. I'm sure he's very smart, very sharp, but his thinking is bigoted ... another academic chopping down the cherry tree ..

I am not saying we should "devolve". All I am saying is that we need to radically consume much less resources in the North.

Around 19% of the worlds total population lives in developed countries. These developed countries has 85% of the worlds total wealth and consume 88% of natures resources. The developed world also generates 75% the worlds environmental pollutions and waste. The developing nations on the other hand account for 81% of the worlds population. They have 15% of the worlds total wealth, they consume 12% of the worlds resources and they generate 25% of the worlds waste.

So I am sorry but I don't understand how you can claim that rising population levels is a major problem? Especially when it has been proven that the population levels are not rising and will actually level off during the coming decades.

Like I've mentioned before: Overpopulation is not the problem - overconsumption by the rich few is. In simpler terms: Consumption is the problem!

You're saying that advocating more equality in a society indicates a wish for Communism or a dictatorship. That is very, very narrow.

You also state that in a market based system "anyone can win". In a simplified version of capitalist ethos, yes indeed they can. Although here I think you also ignore the quite strong forces of social structure, nature and culture, which exist semi-independantly of each other - and are there when the individual is born. These provide conditions in which the individual exists, makes decisions and acts, whether in a liberal capitalist democracy or elsewhere.

Saying that the market somehow balances these forces and provides a level playing field in which anyone can 'win the day', and even large scale problems in nature can be dealt with by the individual, is really not enough.

Not enough? Your view of 'equality' is oversimplified and denies the various people who MUST be discriminated against to achieve equal outcomes. The Market generally sorts things out, whereas in Socialism some 'dictator' or unaccountable person would be your decider. Seriously naive.

You have not made any new points, and I think you hold some idea that equality means everyone having the same level material wealth, which is simply impossible and indeed undesirable. But you still imagine societies have a choice between a dictatorship or a free market, and nothing else. Many functioning economies and countries bled socialism and capitalism successfully. It is your view of The Market which is seriously naive.