Is the world half empty or is the world half full, regardless we need to save it

The Mantra of Optimism

In Rees and Wackernagel’s Our Ecological Footprint, the Optimist finds that “Ecological Footprint analysis is depressing” (1996).  Dr Footnote’s response is that “acknowledging that nature has a finite capacity is not pessimistic, just realistic. “

I found that the point of Plan B is we have really exploited all of our natural resources, and that if we continue to do this there will be nothing  left.  We need something else: a Plan B if you will.   Plan B is the response to a world exploited by humans. Although Plan B is a plan of hope, it needs to be harsh, not necessarily pessimistic but realistic.   We can’t sugar coat things.  We have destroyed our world and we need to save it. 

The message needs to get people not just thinking but doing!   Plan B is a plan of ACTION, as Brown says “Implementing Plan B means undertaking several actions simultaneously, including eradicating poverty, stabilizing population, and restoring the earth’s natural systems” (2008).  Brown realizes that “we have an extraordinary challenge ahead of us, but there is much to be upbeat about.”(Brown, 2008).  Plan B has already started in other countries. 

Are we being optimists, in a pessimistic world?  Should we be less optimistic, more realistic?  Is it politically sustainable to be optimistic, realistic, or optimistic realistic?  The problem is politicians can be very pessimistic, and as we’ve already discussed, optimism is feared to get less votes.  Why?

Rees and Wackerngel suggests that “the footprint is a tool that facilitates learning about ecological constraints and developing a sustainable lifestyle.  The earlier the humanity starts to act upon the new challenges the easier it will be” (Rees and Wackernagel, 1996).    Is the Ecological Footprint a politically sustainable tool?