Globalization can be a very positive force for social change without being necessarily “bad” for environmental sustainability, if we adhere to the hard lessons of ecology. It’s one of the reasons I chose the word “dangerous” for the title of this post, rather than inherently “malignant” or so. Here’s to hoping that human creativity can avert the danger in time!

I won’t argue that wringing every last drop of resources from the earth is a good thing, nor that resources are unlimited. But human innovation does push the carrying capacity of the earth upward even as we grow in population.

Moreover, it’s not unreasonable to imagine a world where population growth slows as the carrying capacity of a region is approached. In fact, whether by dint of policy (china) or choice (Japan, EU, USA), many societies do slow their rate of growth as they approach their economy’s (or environment’s) carrying capacity.

So globalization of trade isn’t good or bad for sustainability, in my estimation. It’s simply is a stage of development on the way to global population growth’s natural slowing and eventual sustainability.

Still, I love the story – it’s one of those classic ecology equations that are great, solid bases for discussion. Thanks.

This is a good summary. One thing thought, small farms own 73% of farm assets which is one more reason to focus on them.

Cheers,
Dorothy

Thanks for posting this.

Scott

This forced candor is what makes Twitter a social medium writ large when it comes to ushering in a greater corporate transparency.