I’ve been noticing in the comments a lot of people banging their heads over religious debates and wringing their hands “where did we go wrong?” I’ll tell you where we went wrong.
We were too good at creating prosperity and civilization, and we shared it with everyone, while in our collective imaginations we allowed ourselves to fantasize that everyone in the world were white people who just happened to have a different paint job. Let’s call it the great prosperity delusion.
This particular set of conditions could have been managed more sustainably; thank God it has not been.
Every white person who has ever opposed us has been part of the great prosperity delusion. They believe that “there’s enough for everyone” and “it’s our duty to share” and “we’re a country of immigrants.” These delusions are only supported in a perpetually growing economy, which, thankfully, is no longer possible.
TM: To establish that we have reached our limits, you refer to the findings of the Global Footprint Network that it takes about 1.5 Earths to sustain the current global economy. What does that mean? And how did they arrive at that figure?
PG: This is a really very exciting bit of work done by some very eminent scientists organized around an NGO called the Global Footprint Network. Their Web site shows their scientific advisory board and their methodology in great detail. To summarize, they worked out how much land area would we need to sustain this economy. How much forest would we need to grow to absorb the CO2? How much ocean do we need to support global fisheries? How much land do we need to filter the water that we use? How much land do we need for growing the food? … and so on.
They translated all of our economic system needs into land area, and their conclusion was that we’re running about 50 percent past capacity. That’s one methodology. Everybody who looks at it from any methodology comes to the same conclusion, which is that our current economic model is not sustainable in a physical sense.
It’s important to differentiate that from being not sustainable because it’s “not nice” or “not fair” or because “it’s bad for polar bears.” It’s not sustainable in the simple physical sense of supply of resources.
We’re using up our capital. If, for example, land area of soil is not strong enough to sustain current food production, then the soil is being degraded. We’re not running out of food yet but we’re degrading aquifers. We’re depleting water supply, we’re depleting soil quality, and we’re polluting the air with CO2 and other gases. The essence of the problem is that, whether it’s the millennium ecosystem assessment; the Stockholm Resilience Center’s work on planetary boundaries; the Nicholas Stern report on climate change; or the Global Footprint Network, everybody who looks at the whole global system comes to the same conclusion. We’re not behaving sustainably. We’re using our resources faster than the earth can provide them.
TM: You point out that it’s not just that we have to figure out how to deal with using 150 percent of Earth’s capacity, but also that — between population growth and economic growth — we’re aiming to multiply that number by two, four or six times.
PG: Correct, this is where the math becomes unarguable in my view. The simple math of 3 percent growth per year — which is forecast in the long term globally, remembering that China is growing at 8 or 9 percent — means a global economy four times this size by 2050. So even allowing for improvements in efficiency and renewable energy and a whole range of ways to improve resource consumption, we’ll need three or four Earths by 2050.
My point is not that that’s unpleasant, not that it’s bad for biodiversity, which it certainly is, my point is: It’s not possible.
There won’t be enough resources for the economy to grow that much, and, therefore, the economy won’t grow that much. That is actually a very big social crisis because our economic system depends upon growth to sustain employment and social stability and so on. We have to recognize that we have not just an environmental problem but a fundamental human problem.
So it’s not just about peak oil. Speaking of which, we are on a downside of the bumpy plateau at the moment, with the price of oil around 80. Enjoy the cheap gasoline for now, and thank the demand destruction of a contracting economy.
However, there are many other “limits to growth” besides peak oil: soil erosion, depleting aquifers, depleting fisheries.
So what happens at the end of growth? What happens when it finally “sinks in,” and the momentum of past decades of growth ends?
It’s hard to say, but one can now for sure that the great prosperity delusion will be over. Combine that with the Internet WN movement; we are like the mold in the cheese. There are certainly enough of us that, when we are no longer actively and harshly suppressed by a well funded nanny state, our views will go viral. At the very least, Whites will understand that charity begins at home; that one should only help those who are likely to reciprocate. The hearts of Whites will harden against the special pleaders; and many people will be enraged at how YKW usurped the country and drove it into the ground with foreign wars, bank bailouts, and cheap labor/race replacement immigration.
The case against YKW is made by YKW himself. They are very blatant and open about their perverse desire to make white people a minority in our own countries. This is much worse than their usury or “killing our Savior.” It’s about killing us!
Economic growth has been a soporific; it has kept the White werewolf tranquilized. The tranquilizer is just about to wear off.