Our old friend Chris Jordan

[Brian K]

I respect what he's doing. He's not wigging out, he's just looking at the big picture.

The problem with consumerism isn't so much consumerism but population. If you have 6 billion consumers on planet Earth maybe the Earth can handle the stripping of it's resources, or maybe we can come up with some better technologies to recycle materials, but when the Earth's population is 12 billion or 25 billion, and that could be in 50 years, there is a tipping point where the Earth can not recover and where even huge technological breakthroughs will not come to our aid. There is only so much land that you can live on, farm on, raise livestock on and build factories on. There are only so many fish in the sea and even today they are being badly over fished. The problem isn't consumerism, it's us. We take from the planet and give nothing back in return. Imagine life on Earth when there's 50 or 100 billion people. Will we even survive to reach that point?

[Frank Petronio]

I recall reading books in the 70s predicting our overpopulation and collapse right about... now... or maybe it was 2000 or 2005...

If anything, we ought to be having more babies in the first world, not less.

Seems to me that dictators, Socialism, beaurucrats, and the lack of a market system have caused the world's leading environmental disasters... for example:

1. Chernoybol

2. The warlords who are burning off billions of cubic feet per day of Natural Gas in Central Africa

3. China

4. Russia

5. New Jersey (well they have a lot of Democrats.)

[Don Miller]

Great for Chris. I like his new work. I wondered why he wasn't around. Never met him personally, but he seems like a nice guy.

If he's an artist, why does the media matter?

[Ben Chase]

The problem isn't consumerism, it's us. We take from the planet and give nothing back in return. Imagine life on Earth when there's 50 or 100 billion people. Will we even survive to reach that point?

That's what major pandemics are for.

[Michael Kadillak]

I respect what he's doing. He's not wigging out, he's just looking at the big picture.

The problem with consumerism isn't so much consumerism but population. If you have 6 billion consumers on planet Earth maybe the Earth can handle the stripping of it's resources, or maybe we can come up with some better technologies to recycle materials, but when the Earth's population is 12 billion or 25 billion, and that could be in 50 years, there is a tipping point where the Earth can not recover and where even huge technological breakthroughs will not come to our aid. There is only so much land that you can live on, farm on, raise livestock on and build factories on. There are only so many fish in the sea and even today they are being badly over fished. The problem isn't consumerism, it's us. We take from the planet and give nothing back in return. Imagine life on Earth when there's 50 or 100 billion people. Will we even survive to reach that point?

Human existance on the planet earth is without question THE WORST THING that the environment could have ever imagined. Since our ancestors started walking erect we
have been mucking things up in every way possible because that is what we do best. All we can do is manage the degredation component to mother earth but make no mistake the earth would be FAR better if we collective were not here. But we are and we have been for a very long time and the world as we know it is not coming to an end. The good news is that in relative terms we only live a relatively short time so my attitude is to live a good life and be conservative, but do not apologize of feel bad for being the supreme species. We earned the right to do what we do. Yes?

Natural resources are there to be consumed and guess what - we consume them. I make no apologies for the house I live in, the food I put on the table, the film and chemicals I use for my photography and the metals and plastics that make our life the marvelous thing that it is. I recycle my aluminum and plastics, mulch my lawn clippings, conserve my water usage to the degree possible and make every effort to minimize my carbon footprint. But I am not going to freeze my ass off, starve or start stressing out being who I strive to be. That is where reality and fanaticism depart company. Now that the Chinese and the Indians and the rest of what we used to refer to as the Third World have had a chance to get a glimpse of raising their standard of living far above the open fire in a grass hut (thanks you internet), the global economy is rearing its ugly head as the human experience continues to exponentially grow on its own terms. So if everyone does the right thing and mitigates their "consumption" to the lowest degree possible what difference does it make in the bigger scheme of things? The best thing possible for the Chris Jordans of the world would be to somehow eliminate 100 million humans from the consumption equation. There is no possible way that you can improve the consumption habits of the existing population base to alter the state of degredation because all you would be doing is borrowing time.

I chose to look at the situation with a realistic perspective and keep the stress component at bay. Being realistic is not only necessary, but it is the only way to get along. Life is very good so by all means enjoy it!

Cheers!

[Bruce Watson]

I respect what he's doing. He's not wigging out, he's just looking at the big picture.

The problem with consumerism isn't so much consumerism but population. If you have 6 billion consumers on planet Earth maybe the Earth can handle the stripping of it's resources, or maybe we can come up with some better technologies to recycle materials...

We can't sustain the consumer culture because there are just too many of us trying to consume. That is, the root cause of the sustainability issues is the size of the human population.

I've seen estimates that the earth's carrying capacity is somewhere around 1-3 billion humans. We are already way over the planet's carrying capacity, which is what's causing the problems we have, from global warming to the loss of 90% of the "food fish" in the world's oceans, to the islands of floating plastic junk in the oceans that have an aggregated size of the state of Texas.

Yet, no one will talk about the over population problem. Certainly not the world's religious leaders. Certainly not the world's political leaders. It'll be interesting to see if Chris tackles that some day.

Then again, it may turn out to be a moot point. Hardly anyone knows, but it takes a pound of oil to put a pound of beef on the table. This includes the fertilizers, herbicides, pesticides, transportation costs, all of it. When we run out of oil, big agra is going to slow to a halt. Has to since it requires oil to make the herbicides, fertilizers, and pesticides without which big agra can't exist. Oil has allowed factory farming to increase per acre yields by 5x or so over sustainable farming.

What's going to happen to the world population of humans when we loose 4/5 of our food due to a lack of oil? Don't be surprised if the first thing we do is cut down every tree on the planet, just like the Easter Islanders did. Even though we know where that road leads.

I'm all for Chris doing his thing to create awareness of what we humans are doing to the only habitable space available to us. I just hope it's not too little too late. But at least he's trying.

[Juergen Sattler]

I very much respect Chris for what he is doing. His images provoke a reaction and I agree with him that statistics only cannot convey how much we consume without ever thinking about it. Platsic bags are a great example - how many bags do you bring back from the grocery store? Does anyone ever consider to reuse these bags next time they go shopping? In many countries in Europe, plastic bags are banned now - you can buy a bio-degradable bad at the store for a dollar or two and use that over and over again. When will we in the US wake up and follow an example like that? Chris is making us aware of these issues without raising himself to the status of a know-it-all guru. I am sure that his work does have an impact on the viewer!

[David A. Goldfarb]

A natural foods store chain in the US tried to encourage reuse of plastic bags around 1989 I recall, offering something like 5 cents for every bag reused, but in Boston where I was living at the time, the health department put an end to the practice on the grounds that it would make it more difficult to trace outbreaks of food poisoning.

[Kirk Gittings]

Frankly I think Chris' work rocks in this and earlier phases. There is an obvious progression aesthetically, graphically and politically. I can't wait to see what he does next.

And who knew, he was also the handsomest guy on the forum?

[paulr]

And who knew, he was also the handsomest guy on the forum?

you probably know the "official" story ... that he left the forum of his own accord because he switched to smaller cameras.

but there are rumors that he got kicked out, like pete best got kicked out of the beatles, because he was getting all the attention from the chicks.