Perhaps we've reached some uncommon conclusions.   We see ecology leading to abundance in the future for humanity.  

Contrary to most anti-environmental myths and even some environmentalists, the facts are; sound ecological practices can lead to great individual wealth and freedom.   Unsound ecological practices can only lead to decreased per capita wealth.   This includes more downsizing, underemployment and crime, -- and yes, the possible worst-case scenarios predicted by many scientists, biologists, and some of the doomsayers.

Our desire is increasing per capita wealth and freedom while reducing the human ecological footprint, so we don't care a damn about so-called; "stimulating the economy".   Growthmania kills what it promises.   Ecology can deliver it.

Our perspective is first that of the deep ecologist.   Unfortunately, this has raised questions in some people's minds: "Then are you a Commie"? No.   It is unfortunate that in many people's minds "environmentalist" rhymes with "communist".   Or that there is even an association with Right or Left.   Sorry, contrary to the popular tub-thumpers, we don't see the connection.   I guess I am from the old school.   "So what are you?", many will demand.   Yes, it's a shame that the political types have been so effective in getting us to see the world only in cartoon colors.   Probably the best answer is to say that I am no fan of any pigeon-hole ism, not Capitalism, Socialism, nor Communism, nor any working economic system that I am aware of.   -- They were all founded in a time when infinite-earth tested as true.

So we assume a capitalistic future, simply because that is what we have to work with, and frankly, it is the one we best understand.   While no great fan of capitalism, nor any other growth-based system, we see a kindler, gentler, science-based form of capitalism in our future.   We believe that abolishing the real mechanisms and false assumptions of growthmania, while retaining capitalism's economic efficiency could be a good road.   Why? By getting off the treadmill, and increasing per-capita wealth, and increasing freedom, leisure time and other things popularly called human or family values, and all while simultaneously reducing the human ecological footprint, we have no room for inefficient systems.

And others will say, "You are not a deep ecologist if you preach increased riches!" Piffle.   Please reread the above paragraph. We need a system that will be supported in the bowling alleys as well as the coffee houses.   I urge the reader to pay particular attention to the sustainability formula below, as well as the concept of interconnectivity.   Personal privation does not sell, that makes it utterly useless, -- no matter what other advantages or perceived high ground it may have in some camps. Assumed mass personal privation is only one way to theoretically get sustainable, and in the long-term it is only a useless Bandaid.

There has been very little study on the economic effects of global population reduction.   One source of wealth will be resource inclusion , nearly the opposite of resource substitution.   For example, on a less stressed growing natural environment, wood could
become plentiful and cheap enough to spawn a sustainable wood-fuel industry with far less impact than today's timber industry.   With the sustainability formula, it becomes possible to "dial in" any level of "environment" and wealth that we desire.   The rest is a matter of education and time.   Technology devaluing both economy-of-scale and labor-as-wealth will ease the process if the economy can re-invent itself to keep pace.

Those who enjoy the outer limits may wish ponder the workings of a hypothetical nearly laborless economy. Barring catastrophe, it surely lies in the future.   If this downsizing and underemployment trend is not temporary, then perhaps it has already begun?

This page deals with some of the the economic and societal problems of environmental depletion and degradation, as well as the political and social battles being fought.   Our purpose is seeking a unified theory.   We believe it is there for the taking.

What is ecology? -- Politics v. science --

Ecology traditionally has been classified as a subset of biology. Loosely, biology studies species floating in space, while ecology studies complex living systems in the context of their world, -- like how they earn their living; allocating, and transporting scarce energy and resources, and this flow to and from the environment and the complex effects and inter-relationships. . .   Dictionary in hand, it's easy to see why ECOlogy and ECOnomics have the same root word and why I will will often discuss them together.   One wonders why this isn't done more often.   We suspect it is because they often have opposite assumptions and conclusions.   Could it be that this is because biologists and ecologists are scientists, while the economists merely employ science? For the biologist, the philosophy of science and scientific method is a way of thought, almost a way of life, -- for the economist it is often a vaguely understood, occasionally useful tool that can sometimes be ignored.   Indeed, scientific method and philosophy are not even in many economist's tool chest.  
What is economics? Who are they?
As we can see, their mindset is how they should consume our resources (most efficiently), not if we should consume them.   The Infinite-Earth assumption? And we can see that they are heavily into policy making.   They could do better.   For example, while consumption-biased GNP and GDP are losing some status among economists, if they were scientists, they would make sure the media and people were aware of the dangers.   For example, while scientists attack Rush Limbaugh's wild-growth world view in matters of the natural sciences, (such as ozone depletion,) there has been little response from the economic community to his wild economic claims.   One of the functions of science is not only to find truth, but to get it out.  

So what are humans? A scientific view:

If humans are a typical mammalian species, then we are a baby species just beginning a two million year journey.   Homo sapiens have only been here about 50,000 years.   Dinosaurs ruled for 100 million, and some sharks are little changed after 400 million years.

This point is critical.   What is Man? Before all else, we are a new terrestrial mammalian species.

Our enlarged brain has not yet had the time needed to prove if it is an evolutionary advantage. (No doubt sabre toothed tigers and wooly mammoths thought they were pretty hot stuff with their enlarged equipment.)

This view of humans and of time (the scientific view) is where most of the conflict between science and politicians (our chief growthmaniacs) originate.   For example the statement; "We are rapidly destroying our world.", is seen very differently by developers and other influential profiteers who think ten years is a long time than by evolutionary biologists who think of 10,000 years as instantaneous. A reasonable -- though arbitrary -- compromise for our politics v. science debate is to consider 10,000 years as a long time, and ten years as instantaneous.

Indeed, much of the debate would be eliminated (and the real issues addressed), if scientists ended each sentence with; "for the long term", and financiers ended each sentence with; "for the short term".   Not likely, since nobody likes to think of themselves as short-term thinkers, and many scientists tend to avoid such implications.   Communication breaks down. So, often the debate; "We are rapidly destroying our world.", is unknowingly over the concept of; "rapidly".

The pyramid scam: sustained growth and growthmania.  

... "Our economy isn't growing fast enough!" -- Oh really?

Of course, a common response to this is that perhaps most of the economy is not dependent on consumption.   That is like saying since only a fraction of the economy is agriculture, the economy is not utterly dependent on it.  

Can a single society be named that drastically increased standard of living without drastically increased consumption? No.  

...other gimmicks...
The dictionary's economic definition for "wealth" is tradable goods.   The latest gimmick of many economists is to confuse real "wealth" with imaginary(0) money, thus it becomes possible to divide a finite pie by zero and come up with infinity! This is but one of many bankrupt attitudes that may destroy our environment, thus our civilization.   World Bank economist Herman Daly calls this genera; "the fallacy of excessive abstraction".  

There are several variations of this fallacy, and other numbers games, notably by the silly prince of the growthmaniac economists; Julian Simon.   He claims (among other silliness) that because something (such as a line segment) can be infinitely divided, it is for practical purposes; infinite...   or since there is no hard border between ore and non-ore, the ore is infinite.   And he also assumes sci-fi technology, such as mining the stars.   He has a long list...   It's amazing what people will accept if it confirms their world view....

"and-so-on..." n. Term used to obfuscate the fallacy of of long term growth.

Remember; "production" is just the other side of the "consumption" coin, everything except real estate is on its way to the trash heap. -- recycling is good, but most often only a delaying tactic.  

Again. Consume 800 trillion planets Earths?!?
"Our economy isn't growing fast enough!" ???

No, it is growing too fast.   In fact, all exponential growth behaves the same way.   Perhaps rather than measuring growth in gross economic activity, we should be measuring per capita wealth? They need not be tied together, indeed, they no longer are, ...read the headlines.   This is a main thrust of our arguments; we need a new way of thinking.   The Earth is no longer infinite.   But, we have powerful vested interests in so-called economic growth living among us, don't we? So? Who runs this country, anyway?

Another leg of the debate is about where we put our values.   Do we seek the long-term gain, or the short-term gain for our species? If we deplete a savings account or an inheritance in an orgy of consumption, then we have maximized short-term gain at the cost of the long-term.   -- Values. -- What is important? Any debate about values raises many questions.   Are all human values relative? We say no, there is a right and a wrong, independent of what any individual happens to think about it.

But good science requires we make our case via facts and logic. For this, our required premises are that the well being of the human species and civilization (such as per capita wealth or happiness) is good and of first importance, and anything else is of secondary importance, and that anything that threatens this (such as famine, poverty, war, widespread unhappiness or mass extinction) is bad. We also assume the scientific or long view of humans described above, that is; as a new species starting a two million year journey.   In this context, we have concluded that there is nothing good for humans that is bad for the environment, and there is nothing bad for the environment that is good for humans. This idea is also supported by the concept of interconnectivity.   This paragraph may be summed up as: we assume life is good, and stupidly; this is a radical concept currently outside the philosophy of science.

In general, those pro-growthers who strongly disagree with this have too small a concept of either time or community, and this can only be remedied via a well rounded education including truth-seeking skills, and exposure to logic and the natural sciences.   Contrary to pro-growthers' assumptions and myths, there is no perpetual motion.

Ecol-Econ: wealth v. fear

The facts suggest that if we have a poor environment then we can only have a poor economy and quality of life since all of our sustenance and artifacts are derived from nature.   Conversely, the greater the environment, the greater the individual's wealth potential. Science combined with pure logic tells us this is true.   Yet vested interests using fear tactics tell us otherwise.   The well funded "Wise Use" and pseudo-property-rights organizations are examples of this.   Fear and urban myth sells well, science does not.   Worse; facts, logic and science are ill suited to deal with these low emotional responses -- and green men from Mars can never be scientifically disproved.   Yet we will try.

These pages are only for those with an interest in seeking the truth about the environmental debate.   This debate largely does not exist in the halls of science, but on talk radio, in popular media, and from scapegoating politicians seeking votes the easy way.

Organized nature-haters.