No easy answers today, I promise:

1.) Can you talk about global cultural sustainability without talking about expected changes in life span?

2.) Can you talk about global cultural sustainability while talking about expected changes in life span, without being perceived as a eco-messianic advocate of massive human depopulation?

3.) If you’re perceived as pro-genocide, will anyone listen to you?

3.) In answer to question 3, exactly how rich would you have to be?

The third and fourth are maybe a bit too cynical. But considering the seriousness of Ulrich’s position, and the associated discussion here (Sierra Club), here (Grist), here (Salon), and elsewhere…

Cut to the chase already, ok? Life span is an issue. Carrying capacity is an issue. The rate of global economic activity is an issue. Entropy is an issue. Some people take the lead on those issues. They’re heretics. Nobody listens. Nobody wants to cull the herd. I sure don’t. Not unless Americans start at home and proceed at a rate equal to (or greater than) our disproportionate consumption of non-renewable resources vis a vis everyone else. Ignore me. That’s just a blog talking.

One last thought: let’s start a market mechanism to offset EVERYTHING.